Major Advertisers Caught In Spyware Net

theodp writes "BW reports on Fortune 500 companies' use of adware - Sprint for its PCS phones, major banks peddling Visa cards, Sony and retailers including Circuit City. And Mercedes-Benz before the company, fielding complaints, put on the brakes. So far, law enforcement has mostly targeted the transmitters, but NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is threatening to hold accountable household-name advertisers that use adware networks. No longer, says Spitzer, can companies play dumb."

Comments

excellent

[choongiri]

quite simply, the only way we will see the end of adware and spam is if they stop being profitable. this is excellent news, and i sincerely hope goes ahead with his threat.

Re:excellent

[Anonymous Coward]

The rabbit hole goes much deeper than that, if you look at ad syndication, what 'don't be evil' Google is doing, etc. Excellent reference at:
http://www.benedelman.org/

--dungeness

Re:excellent

[Xyrus]

And all this is surpirsing....why?

~X~

I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[einhverfr]

So, if I want to harass my competitors, I can release spyware with their ads on it or pay for spyware distribution in their name? This would subject them to needless prosecution and distraction?

The transmitters can easily be traced. It is much harder to trace the source of the ads themselves. For civil suits, the "preponderance of evidence" might be a pretty weak standard because there is not much to go on to discredit the prosecution. Of course IANAL...

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[Wiseleo]

Yep. Go ahead and misuse your competition's trademarks without a standard disclaimer who those marks belong to. :-)

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[CommiePuddin]

So, if I want to harass my competitors, I can release spyware with their ads on it or pay for spyware distribution in their name? This would subject them to needless prosecution and distraction?

The transmitters can easily be traced. It is much harder to trace the source of the ads themselves. For civil suits, the "preponderance of evidence" might be a pretty weak standard because there is not much to go on to discredit the prosecution. Of course IANAL...

I would imagine that you would run into huge issues with copyright infringement, "truth in advertising," and so much more.

And, like yourself, I ANAL.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[Thanatopsis]

Not really - the AG would simply follow the money, right back to you. Spizer is going after willful ignorance, namely when you suspect there's a problem but chose just not to investigate it too closely thus remaining willfully ignorant.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[petermgreen]

there is this stuff called cash.

pay it as a bonus to the boss. (that gets the money out of the corp accounts) and get him to pay for the spyware in cash.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[Thanatopsis]

There's this thing called subpoena. They subpeona your financial records, your tax records. You don't comply, you go to jail for contempt. Paying it as a bonus to your boss won't get rid of the fact the transaction took place.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[incom]

And which laws, criminal or civil, fully or partially, account for frame-ups anyway? Innocent until proven guilty isn't exactly a well implemented doctrine ;)

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[petermgreen]

sure they could see the boss got a bonus and dre out a load of cash.

but how the hell could they find out that the boss gave that CASH to a spyware company with no record.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[Thanatopsis]

I assume you have never seen a single episode of "Law & Order" but it works this way. The spyware company gets a subpoena. Good Eliot Spitzer notes, "Mr. Spyware provider under current NY State you will be going to jail 5 years of each occurrance of your spyware. I will reduce your sentence or drop the charges if you tell me who paid you to develop the spyware." The vendor not wishing to go to jail spills the beans. When engaged in illegal activity, this sort of thing happens all the time.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[einhverfr]

My point is simply that it would be fairly easy to frame someone for this sort of offence. Sure it would be illegal, but if the other guy is convicted or settles, then it becomes harder to find the resources to figure out who actually paid for the spyware.

Remember when someone managed to get Verisign to send them Microsoft's private keys by posing as Microsoft? This sort of framing is not entirely improbably....

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[needacoolnickname]

Yes. If the people they shell out the money to then give it to someone else and them to someone else. Yes I do.

Anytime I call up my wireless carrier, cc company, bank, or any of those companies and they ask for an updated contact number I tell them that I will give it to them if they don't sell or give it to anyone, in or outside of their company for marketing. They always tell me "we don't do that!". My reply is "If everyone doesn't do that then why the f... is my name and number on a list?"

Someone in the company is doing it. It's just a lot easier to blame subcontractors.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't get it.

CASH is virtually untracable. A few thousand to do an ad campaign is easily hidden in accounting records and the transaction is not going to be recorded by the bank.

You just don't know how fraud and scams work.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[forlornhope]

I think the gp's point was that when you got found out for the behavior, the victim company could do horrible bad things to you. Especially if they can prove malicious intent, they can pierce the corprate veil.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[tomhudson]

Problem with that sort of evidence is that, while it looks good on TV, it doesn't stand up in court.

The defense will ask if the witness (Mr Spyware Provider) was promised anything in return for his testimony. The answer will be "Yes, I got a reduction of 80% in my jail term".

Since Mr. Spyware Provider wasn't a very credible witness to begin with, the case will fail.

It will all go down to Mr. Spyware Providers' word against the Defendants - and with no actual evidence, to boot. There WILL be a reasonable doubt that Mr. Spyware Provider is lying to save his own skin.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[ozmanjusri]

So, if I want to harass my competitors, I can release spyware with their ads on it

So, if I want to harass my competitors, I can telemarket their ads to the "Do Not Call" list?

It's not competitors companies should be worried about, it's resellers. How much trouble do you think Pfizer would be in if they had to account for every advert for their product?

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[squiggleslash]

Generally speaking, the reason to collect evidence like this is to create opportunities to collect further evidence. It's a lot easier to say "We need all records of all emails and payments made to J. Blogs of XYZ Corp as we believe he was used to funnel money to SpamBeEverywhere Inc in return for advertising, according to this sworn statement by the CEO of SpamBeEverywhere Inc" to a judge and get a warrant than it is to say "Er, we need, well, all emails ever sent in the last year and all records of all payments made to anyone by XYZ Corp because we know SpamBeEverywhere Inc showed their ads."

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[Thanatopsis]

Evidence just like that stands up all the time. In fact almost all RICO cases are setup just like that. Of course that wouldn't be your only evidence - the bank records showing a withdrawl of X amount and a deposit in the same amount to the spyware providers.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[tomhudson]

So you'd go before a judge and ask for a blanket search warrant based on statements made by a CEO who admitted to criminal activity, without a trial to establish fact evidence, to grab everything from a third company against which you have zero physical evidence and only an unsubstantiated allegation from your admitted crook against an intermediary.

You've been watching too much TV :-)

By your own statement, only XYZ Corp would be under the spotlight at that point, not any company making payments to it. You would have to establish the connection (not just an allegation) between XYZ Corp and SpamBeEverywhere Inc before you'd be allowed to go on a fishing expedition for payments made TO XYZ Corp by any 3rd party. In other words, either XYZ Corp rolls over, or you're shit out of luck. And the odds are, XYZ Corp won't roll over, seeing as there's no incentive for them to (no upside) and a large disincentive to (confessing to something that probably can't be proven in court is just plain dumb, seeing as SpamBeEverywhere's unsupported testimony would not be very credible before a jury in either a civil or criminal trial - in the case of a criminal proceding, it would definitely not meet the "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.).

Even that won't help in the case of cash payments. Cash doesn't leave much of a paper trail, you know.

Much better to go after the perceived beneficiary of the advertising directly, which is what's being proposed. If the company is guilty, the evidence will be there. If they were wilfully ignorant, that can also be established quite easily. Again, the evidence will be there. If, on the other hand, they are being Joe Jobbed, they will welcome the opportunity to clear their name.

Why go the complicated route A -> B -> C when you can just go directly to C?

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[tomhudson]

Of course that wouldn't be your only evidence - the bank records showing a withdrawl of X amount and a deposit in the same amount to the spyware providers.

The original poster posited cash payments - no bank records.

Additionally, you're talking out your ass (which is okay - this is slashdot after all) if you think a criminal RICO charge applies here.

As for civil actions, the courts have continually whittled away at applying RICO in civil cases. And where's the racketeering, the money-laundering (no, taking cash payments is NOT money-laundering, unless you're stupid enough to then convert them to book assets via false receipts instead of just spending the cash), or the appropriation of another business via criminal racketeering in such a case?

Nope, no RICO crimes here.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[squiggleslash]

So you'd go before a judge and ask for a blanket search warrant based on statements made by a CEO who admitted to criminal activity, without a trial to establish fact evidence, to grab everything from a third company against which you have zero physical evidence and only an unsubstantiated allegation from your admitted crook against an intermediary.

No, you'd go to a judge to ask for a relatively specific search warrant based upon prima facia evidence of wrong doing. Trial? Are you joking? Do you think that Judges require a trial to convict someone before issuing search warrants? The entire point of search warrants is to gather evidence. And the bar for getting search warrants is not that high.

You've been watching too much TV :-)

I think you have. There's a whole bunch of myths associated with the justice system, in that it's always assumed that judges base their entire decision-making on loopholes that over-protect defendants and screw prosecutors. As a general rule, if there's just cause to gather specific types of evidence, judges can and will grant search warrants. What they will not do is grant them in obvious fishing expeditions.

Relevent evidence being examined because someone admitted a particular offense took place and there's already circumstantial evidence to back it up is not generally considered a "fishing expedition." All the prosecutor essentially has to do is say "XYZ corp's ads were being shown by SpamBeEverywhere, and their CEO admits XYZ corp paid them, specifically they were paid in cash by such-and-such an employee of XYZ corp." That's two bits of evidence right there, and it's perfectly legitimate for a judge to issue a (narrow) search warrant for relevent evidence.

By your own statement, only XYZ Corp would be under the spotlight at that point, not any company making payments to it. You would have to establish the connection (not just an allegation) between XYZ Corp and SpamBeEverywhere Inc before you'd be allowed to go on a fishing expedition for payments made TO XYZ Corp by any 3rd party

The above comment makes no sense whatsoever in the context of the comment I was making. I think this is because I simplified the scenario a little to get to the meat of the issue (XYZ Corp is an alleged client of SpamBeEverywhere. The latter is the entity responsible for the spyware, it's creation and propogation. We can add hundreds of companies with different roles here: developers, the company that "owns" the spyware product, selling advertising and buying spaces in installed applications, and even clients of the latter like Sharman Networks) Some of the comments above though are false anyway, but to try to cover both:

• There are at least two parties that are under the spotlight. XYZ Corp and SpamBeEverywhere. Nobody has alleged any payments would be made to XYZ corp. SpamBeEverywhere has received payments from XYZ to put their ads in spyware. So, for example, XYZ might be Brand Name Cola Products Inc, and SpamBeEverywhere might be Cydoor.
• At least two connections exist. (1) The CEO of SpamBeEverywhere has admitted to receiving payments from XYZ Corp to show their ads. (2) SpamBeEverywhere has shown XYZ Corp's ads.
• The purpose of an investigation is to examine an allegation. The trial afterwards determines whether the evidence uncovered during the investigation proves the allegation is true (and that the allegation involves unlawful activity.) Saying "not just an allegation" is nonsense. Everything up to the trial is a set of allegations. Nothing before any judge issuing a search warrant constitutes anything but an allegation, in the eyes of the law.
• What fishing investigation? It'd be a fishing investigation if there was no evidence of illegal conduct, or if the investigation unnecessarily included gathering irrelevent material to the allegations involved.

Why go the complicated

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[DrSkwid]

yeah, just like when Sun/IBM went round spraying "Microsfot Ownz j00" on the US's national monuments

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[john_uy]

can't this be considered as money laundering? i live in the philippines and we were just lifted from being a blacklisted country by the fatf (Financial Action Task Force.) anyway, major countries that probably are supporting these are members of the fatf, can't their money be tracked and have their accounts suspended and even confiscated because of this? if not, i just find this blacklisting more of a political clout than actually preventing illegas instances such as these (i mean did the us pass a law against spyware already?)

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[spectre_240sx]

However, once the guilty party is shown, there's a good chance that going after their records the puzzle pieces could be put together and a good case made. Just because the witness can't testify doesn't mean they can't be useful.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[tomhudson]

Okay, this is going to be a bit complicated.

If you read your own original scenario again, you'll see there is a chain of 3 companies involved, not 2

"We need all records of all emails and payments made to J. Blogs of XYZ Corp as we believe he was used to funnel money to SpamBeEverywhere Inc in return for advertising, according to this sworn statement by the CEO of SpamBeEverywhere Inc"

The third entity is the wilfully ignorant advertiser, the one that is making the payments to J. Blogs of XYZ Corp. The one whose money is, as you say, being funnelled. This entity (the advertiser) is placing ads with a middle man (XYZ Corp) who then farms it out to SpamBeEverywhere Inc. This also fits in with the scenario TFA was talking about, which had advertisers farming out to agencies, who then pass it on to the spammers. The AG wants to go after the advertisers, not the middle men.

Applying it to your scenario, the AG wants to go after the original advertiser making the payments, rather than XYZ Corp or SpamBeEverywhere Inc., because going after the middlemen doesn't stop the problem - going after DontWannaKnowHow Inc, without who there would be no reason for the existence of XYZ Corp or SpamBeEverywhere Inc, makes more sense.

Also a lot easier afterwards to go down the food chain.

Now, back to the original poster http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=153911&cid=129 11194

sure they could see the boss got a bonus and dre out a load of cash.

but how the hell could they find out that the boss gave that CASH to a spyware company with no record.

Again, the scenarios outlined don't make the connection. "Follow the money" fails, whereas going after the advertiser succeeds (you don't care in that case HOW it was financed - it could be stipulated that it was done as a quid pro quo, or even as a freebie with the advertisers' knowledge, even if the adv. chose to remain ignorant of the details - just that it took place, and that the advertiser should have exercised some control rather than just "allow it to happen".

"Follow the money" is really shorthand for "see who benefits". Usually, the two are equivalent - but not in this case, where "follow the money" breaks down because of the use of untraceable cash.

But lets ignore that and look a bit ore closely at the "fishing expedition":

Relevent evidence being examined because someone admitted a particular offense took place and there's already circumstantial evidence to back it up is not generally considered a "fishing expedition."

In this scenario, there is no "evidence" against the advertiser; only a statement against the middle man, XYZ Corp. The statement itself is heresay, in that SpamBeEverywhere has no firsthand knowledge of how XYZ Corp is paid by the advertiser. No judge is going to issue a search warrant based on statements that are at best heresay and at worse conjecture. Its not a case of judges ruling against prosecutors - its about heresay having zero value.

A proper scenario would be ALMOST the same, but the elements would differ: here's how:

AG: We believe XYZ Corp is being used to funnel money from advertisers to spam houses
We have a statement from the CEO of a spam house that he was present when an advertiser made a payment to XYZ Corp for spam services.

See the diff? That might get you a warrant against XYZ Corp. Unsupported speculation won't.

BTW, a nitpick, but since when is the development of the spyware illegal? Development of software that can have illegal uses is not itself illegal - just ask DVD John :-)

You have no choice but to start with those who manage the malware product to begin with: those who sell the advertising

Nonsense - as one coun

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[Thanatopsis]

I didn't call this a RICO case. I merely said that RICO cases have less than savory witnesses who plead their way to testifing. That's my only point. Not that this would fall under the RICO Act or this is a RICO case. If you will re-read my point, it should become clearer that I was talking about the credibility of the witness.

Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG

[tomhudson]

Point taken (ouch! :-)

But again, as I pointed out, the original poster posited CASH payments

sure they could see the boss got a bonus and dre out a load of cash.

but how the hell could they find out that the boss gave that CASH to a spyware company with no record.

- no bank records to follow up, which is what you suggested as evidence that could be developed:

the bank records showing a withdrawl of X amount and a deposit in the same amount to the spyware providers.

The additional problem, which I point out elsewhere, is that heresay doesn't cut it. Ints not enough that someone say that Advertiser A paid Company B X amount of dollars - they have to say they have first-hand knowledge of the payment. In other words, they have to have witnessed the payoff, and known what it was for. A mere supposition won't cut it for any sort of warrant, and if a judge DID issue one on that basis, all the evidence so gathered would be thrown out.

The AGs' approach is much better - no warrants needed. Just a prosecution of the advertisers. Who cares who they paid or how they paid it?

how bloody convenient...

[advocate_one]

That's making many advertisers nervous, though they insist they work with subcontractors and often don't know about any adware use until they get a complaint.

"There's plausible deniability at each tier," said Chris King, product marketing manager at anti-spyware vendor Blue Coat Systems Inc.

to put it politely... bollocks... they subcontract it, they are responsible for it... they can't fob off the responsibility to the subcontractors... they are responsible for making sure that their subcontractors do it legally and ethically...

Re:how bloody convenient...

[nonsequitor]

IANAL, but couldn't the corporation still be held liable? I bet that these subcontractors are not violating their contracts, if the corporation are serious about not being involved in these activities, I'm sure they'll add clauses to the contracts the subcontrators sign, explicitly forbidding them from engaging in those practices. Otherwise they are tacitly endorsing it by not expressly forbidding it. Plus, it would have an added benefit for the corporation to be able to shift liability to the subcontractor if they violate the contract, assuming the appropriate legalese is in place.

Re:how bloody convenient...

[bckrispi]

Companies normally *do* hold subcontractors responsible for how they market their products. But those subcontractors may sub the work out to another company, who subs it out to another, who subs it out to someone who has a couple million email addresses. The Spammer is seldom just a one-off from the producer.

Re:how bloody convenient...

[DavidTC]

It doesn't matter a damn bit if they hold anyone responsible.

are resonsible for subcontractors. It's not some sort of optional thing.

Re:how bloody convenient...

[pete6677]

In most cases, companies are held responsible for acts by subcontractors. This is why they make sure their subs have insurance, licenses, bonding, etc and are generally reputable. Especially when it comes to toxic waste disposal, the company will thoroughly investigate whoever hauls their waste, since they will be held responsible when it turns up on a beach somewhere. I don't see why illegal advertising would be treated differently by the legal system.

Re:how bloody convenient...

[Will_Malverson]

'Plausible deniablity' doesn't mean quite what it sounds like in that quote -- in this case, 'plausible deniability' means a situation specifically set up so that any denial is 'plausible', Mr. King is not making any claims on the actual plausibility of their claims.

Here's another example, said on Slashdot occasionally: "I run an open WiFi network so that I can have plausible deniability for everything that goes across my Internet connection".

Re:BW?

[justforaday]

I would rather see them refer to slashdot as /. (or as many *nix using dyslexic slashdotters say ./)

I hope this works out...

[Kagura]

Unfortunately, unless some other big names in law jump on this, we won't see anything more of this after this article. This won't be the first time something like this happened.

"Follow the money"

[PornMaster]

The concept of "follow the money" unfortunately works way too well. Whether it's funding adware asshats or terrorist organizations, in order to cripple the bad guys, cutting off funding works wonders.

Re:"Follow the money"

[JadeNB]

The concept of "follow the money" unfortunately works way too well.

Unfortunately? Unfortunately because it reflects badly on human nature? Unfortunately from the point of view of adware asshats or terrorist-funders?

Good info from Ben Edelman

[Hulkster]

Ben Edelman has been writing about *&^%$#@! spyware for quite some time and not only provides information and actual video's of how these guys operate, but also untangles some of the financial backing of the companies and VC who are behind 'em.

The Big Green Guy ought to pay a visit to the spyware companies and do a World Wrestling Federation Hulk Drop on 'em! ;-)

Re:Good info from Ben Edelman

[kawika]

For the most recent outrage see Paperghost's blog which describes the installation of spyware using child porn as bait. Don't ask the question "how low can they go" unless you can stomach the answer.

Trust no one.

[Recovering Hater]

And people tell me that I am wrong for blocking all ads and javascript. All cookies get flushed on exit. The internet was forever changed for the worse when commercial interests moved in. It was only a matter of time befor the seduction of easily available consumer tracking got the best of even so called respectable companies. Mod this poster +5 tin-foil hat. But at least it's better than being +5 asshat advertiser or +5 sucker with spyware riddled pc.

Re:Trust no one.

[flood6]

The internet was forever changed for the worse when commercial interests moved in.

I doubt you really believe this. The big money is what brought the innovation. I'm sure there will be people lined up to tell me about how great it was when they used baud or Mosaic or whatever, or how anything new is just "fluff" (I'll agree with the "fluff" thing to some extent), but most reasonable people will agree that the internet has vastly improved. You can still do all the things you used to love "way back when". So many non geeks can do what they want now, too.

As you mentioned, you can dump nearly all trace of the advertising junk that exists now.

Non-geeks in oppressed countries that now have the tools to post, read, and exchange information online; they may not have been able to do this before the big cash brought the big innovation. Housewives with a coughing child can look online to see information that can help them decide if they need to take their child to the hospital.

So many of these things are supported by advertisements or other corporate interests. I'm not one of the "don't block ads" people, I block anything that blinks or slows browsing, but you have to acknowledge the benefit the capitalist interest brought - I'll certainly admit the harm it's brought. But overall, the good outweighs the bad.

Re:Trust no one.

[Reaperducer]

Your ID calls you a "Recovering Hater." I'd say you still have a long way to go in your recovery.

Re:Trust no one.

[bani]

I doubt you really believe this. The big money is what brought the innovation.

It's what also brought malware, zombie spam networks, massive and continual and widespread attacks, phishing, nigerian scams, and a zillion other things we are constantly deluged with. These things are primarily driven by commercial interests. And there's virtually no law enforcement and no regulation over any of it. It's the wild west for corporations to exploit at their leisure.

So I can honestly say I really do believe the internet was much better off when it was not dominated by commercial interests.

The swimming pool was much nicer before all the corporations started massive scale dumping of industrial waste and sewage into it. Maybe you're into that kind of thing though.

Re:Trust no one.

[HiThere]

...I doubt you really believe this. The big money is what brought the innovation. I'm sure there will be people lined up to tell me about how great it was when they used baud or Mosaic or whatever, or how anything ...

Nearly all the innovation that happened on the net, happened BEFORE the commercial interests noticed it. When it comes to worthwhile innovation, as opposed to just "innovation of some sort" the fraction gets even higher, probably over 97%.

Commercial interests were quite active in PUBLICISING the net, but that's been FAR from an unmitigated good.

OTOH, without the driving of commercial interests it would have taken a very long time to get FAST internet connections...DSL, CABLE, etc. They do have THAT major good to their credit.

I would say that over 90% of the changes since 1990 count as degradation of service. How much over, I'm not sure. (And, of course, this IS subjective. I may despise Flash, but others adore it.)

Re:Trust no one.

[Recovering Hater]

No. I do believe it. Corporate greed has added some value true, but mostly big corporations brought the greed that spurs zombie networks, spam, malware and all manner of junk we have to be aware of now. The average housewife user you mentioned are the very ones being afflicted the most by adware, malware, spam, and all manner of phishing techniques rampant in the nwo of the net. Just because I am geeky enough to be free of these things doesn't mean an average user is. If they were then would we have zombie networks? Phishing? Malware? Spyware? Not to the extent we have now. No. I do believe corporations have marred the internet. I would say that someone who has been phished or had their pc infested with crap would agree with me that the bad outweighs the good.

Re:Trust no one.

[flood6]

malware, zombie spam networks, massive and continual and widespread attacks, phishing, nigerian scams

Those aren't commercial. Those are criminal. I'm not going to argue that criminals are not doing damage to the internet and it's users. I think you missed the point.

Maybe you're into that kind of thing though.

Snide comment. Nice touch.

Re:Trust no one.

[bani]

No, you missed the point.

The point being, corporate interests are driving criminal activity.

Corporations pay spammers to spam form them.

The spammers pay criminals to infect and backdoor computers for them so they can spam.

The criminals write viruses, worms, malware, backdoors, keyloggers, root scripts, etc. They portscan and bruteforse ssh on massive scales (I have seen 200+mbit ssh bruteforcing traffic).

Follow the money. Massive corporate $$ has turned the internet into a cesspool of attacks and compromised boxes.

corporations $$ -> spammers $$ -> criminals

get it? hold corporations responsible for this dreck, and the tree collapses.

Re:Trust no one.

[squiggleslash]

I think the widespread availability of real news from various different sources (not just ClariNew's agency feed), shopping services (such as those offered by Amazon.com and eBay.com), the increases in technologies that offer artists ways to produce and distribute content (MPEG4, Flash, etc - even if the latter is often used for evil too), the ability to manage one's bank and credit card accounts via the web, as well as accounts for electric, telephone (mobile and fixed), and other utilities, the ability to research a car's vehicle history before you buy it, not to mention the number of large websites that would arguably be impossible to professionally maintain without sponsorship (such as IMDB et al), have all had a positive effect and been net contributions to the usefulness of the 'net.

The downside has been spam, some arguably abusive use of Flash and pop-up windows in JavaScript, and the occasional hacker - though there were plenty of those in 1990, let me tell you, and yes FTP sites and BBSes did frequently carry software infected with malware, or "Trojans" as they were referred to then. Usenet is, of course, on its last legs, but as its been replaced by numerous web-technology based forums, such as the one you're reading now, it's not as if we're worse off over-all. Besides which, Usenet started to go to pot when people started posting in HTML at a time when 90% of newsreaders didn't support it and had users, posting from Universities and other sources of shell accounts, who couldn't very well change even if they wanted to.

So I think you're wrong. I think the Internet's better than it's ever been before. And I think commercial involvement has been a big driver of that.

YES

[Anonymous Coward]

Elliot Spitzer is a bad mother fucker.

Re:Guts in law?

[vettemph]

>> I'd just be more happy if some law enforcement started fixing the identity insecurity problem.

Be careful what you ask for. Your government may tatoo a number on your forehead or the back of your neck.

This happens more than you know

[demonic-halo]

This happened to our company numrous times. We use a variety of advertising agencies like comission junction, doubleclick.com, etc... We basically don't really know what they're doing most of the time, we just give them a tracking code and a URL to lead customers and calculate how many leads per $$$ they generate.

Alot of the times, many of these sites like Comission Junction, just empowers members to post our links whereever. They just take our links, add their tracking code and URL to it, and give them to their members to include on their website. These members sometimes will result in dubious behavior to generate hits, and will often use ways to force the links on you. I'm sure you probably see those "Free" something that tell you to click on a dozen link before they send you the free iPod or something, then afterwards, find some trick to get out of sending you that iPod. Others sometimes use adware and other malicous software methods.

Sometimes we see certain agencies generate such good results, we give them even more money. We don't realize they're doing wrong until we start getting complaints. I've witness things such as our ads being included in adware (like Gator), porn sites, spam mail, chat bots, etc...

It's really hard to hard to control the means our ads get distributed using 3rd party agencies. But we're sort of forced to rely on them since we're a small company with little know how in advertising. It's much easier to pay other people do the work and focus on developing a good product.

Re:This happens more than you know

[rhizome]

>It's really hard to hard to control the means our ads get distributed using 3rd party agencies.

What you describe is willful ignorance. You know the problem exists but you just push the blame down the chain. This whole issue could be avoided if you put some care into the contracts you sign. It's probably better than getting sued by the NY Attorney General.

Re:This happens more than you know

[Todd Knarr]

And why don't you know what the subcontractors you're using are doing? I know that, in every other industry that subcontracts work, the general contractor is ultimately responsible for the work. If they don't know what the subcontractor's doing, they get dinged for that on top of the actual faults in the work. Perhaps, if you don't have the expertise to ride herd on your subcontractors yourself, you should begin doing what construction and other general contractors do and write clauses into your advertising contracts that provide for big, nasty penalties for subcontractors who use adware/spyware and make those subcontractors liable to you for any problems they cause that cause you any liability, plus requires the people you hire to include indentical clauses in their contracts with anyone they subcontract out to as well (with likewise nasty penalties for failing to do so). Then enforce those clauses strictly. If the agency balks, take your business elsewhere because that's a sure sign they are doing something underhanded and don't want to be nailed down on it.

Re:This happens more than you know

[tomhudson]

4 words: willful ignorance, due dilligence

1. Nobody is forcing you to advertise on the net (which even in 1999 was already the LEAST effective means of advertising, and has gotten worse in terms of credibility, results per dollar spent, etc)
2. Nobody is forcing you to use the agencies you mentioned. Its not hard to check out the people you're dealing with. That you don't is the hallmark of the wilfully ignorant who don't do their due diligence
3. Contrary to what you state, its very easy to control how your ads get distributed - just put in a clause that provides financial penalties if they use adware/spyware. Agencies that won't agree to that are obviously not going to make the short list. That you are so desperate that you go with someone who won't agree to such terms is a sign that your business plan is doomed.

It's much easier to pay other people do the work and focus on developing a good product.

What good is it developing a good product if, by the time you get to market, you've already pissed off every possible consumer?

Re:This happens more than you know

[Reaperducer]

It's not hard to figure out that Commission Junction and its members might employ unethical practices. There are hundreds and hundreds of messages about it all over the internet. I'm sure a quick Google would turn up plenty.

Finding a reputable company to do business with is as simple as asking another company you know, trust, and respect who they place ads with. Even easier is to contact the site you want to advertise on directly. Often it's cheaper, too.

And the line about being a "small company with little know how in advertising" is totally bogus. Placing on-line ads is so easy, even 15-year-olds with their own blogs do it. This is exactly the kind of thing that Spitzer is talking about where companies pretend they don't know what's going on. You're just making excuses and it makes your company sound slimey.

Re:This happens more than you know

[Animats]

It's probably better than getting sued by the NY Attorney General.

Or worse, charged criminally with Computer tampering in the second degree, New York's law that covers minor computer tampering. "Section 156.20: A person is guilty of computer tampering in the second degree when he uses or causes to be used a computer or computer service and having no right to do so he intentionally alters in any manner or destroys computer data or a computer program of another person."

That's a class A misdemeanor in New York. Maximum sentence is one year. Typical sentences are much less, but are often something like some number of weekends in jail.

Note the "causes to be used" clause. That lets prosecutors go up the food chain to the original advertiser who bought the adware deal.

Putting a few advertising executives in jail every weekend for six months would get across the message that adware is a no-no.

Re:This happens more than you know

[tomhudson]

A quick look at the posters history, etc., makes me think that demonic-halo is a throwaway account for White Manual, another throwaway account. IOW, a troll (and a not very good one, at that).

Re:This happens more than you know

[julesh]

Read the comment again: it isn't his subcontractors that are the problem, it's Commission Junctions. It's *their* responsibility to ensure that *their* subcontractors are following the rules that are laid down is his company's contract with them. Chances are, he doesn't even have access to find out who the subcontractors are, so couldn't find out what they're doing even if he wanted to. Which also prevents this from being willful ignorance, I believe (in response to another poster).

You also seem to have little experience of the advertising industry. Advertising is a seller's market: buyers (other than the few who are really powerful) cannot dictate conditions on the sellers, because there are no sellers with good enough placements who are willing to budge on their own conditions.

Re:This happens more than you know

[fdiskne1]

No matter what your business, when it comes to any task that must be accomplished, you must pay for it to be completed correctly one way or another. If not, you'll pay for it to NOT be completed correctly.

Take IT for example. If you, the business manager don't know IT, you need to pay someone to do it. Of course, you need to know enough about it to hire the right person. If you don't, you need to pay someone that knows enough about it to ask the right questions and get the person you need.

In your case, the issue is online advertising. You claim you don't know much about it. In that case, you need to pay someone that knows about it to do the task for you. If they don't know enough about it to be safe legally, then you'd better fire them and get someone better. Maybe it's more of a legal issue. If you don't know enough about the law to add the appropriate clause into your contracts, then you'd better hire a lawyer to do it for you. If you don't, you'll likely be paying a lawyer to defend you in court, if you can find one that will defend someone who doesn't do their due diligence.

This is no one's problem except your own.

Re:This happens more than you know

[Todd Knarr]

It is subcontractors that're the problem. Multiple layers of subcontractors are standard in the construction industry, and always it's the general contractor that's responsible. He's responsible for making sure his subcontractors do the work right within the rules, and if they subcontract out he's responsible for their subcontractors. If there's a problem the general contractor's the one on the hook, and if he didn't write contracts to keep the subcontractor chain on the hook with him that's too bad for him. The law's already been settled there: the general contractor (the one the person having the building built signed a contract with) is the one responsible for the building, period, and mere ignorance of what his subcontractors and sub-subcontractors were doing doesn't absolve him of that responsibility (he may be shielded if someone down the chain actively mislead, but even then he's responsible for checking the work).

Note that the above doesn't prevent the subcontractor or sub-subcontractor from being nailed too. It just holds the general contractor liable. I'm pretty sure that "seller's market" won't be for long if Elliot Spitzer starts sending people to jail. Few companies wanting advertising done are going to want to take the risk alone.

Re:Guts in law?

[tomhudson]

No longer, says Spitzer, can companies play dumb."

Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!
Yes!

ITS ABOUT F***ING TIME! Companies have a responsability to know who they're dealing with, and not plead "willful ignorance". Its the same mrally, ethically, and legally as you buying a new computer for ten cents on the dollar from some guy who sells them out of his trunk.

In this case, I for one welcome our new attorney-general overlords!

I'll applaud when I see people arrested

[Mr Ambersand]

and not one second sooner.

Re:BW?

[Anonymous Coward]

I often wonder about this at night ... lying sleepless in my bed:

Why slashdot instead of the much more common and meaningful dotslash? What does /. mean or stand for, anyway?

And don't tell me stands for news for nerds. stuff that matters. not good enough!

Is Spitzer our last hope for America?

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

:) It just seems that it is always him, and his people taking a stand and going after things with a clear sense of right and wrong, concerning matters of corperate abuse.

Or atleast he's the only one who gets press when doing so. Either way.. Go get em Spitzer.

How is this any different?

[artemis67]

Can't companies already commit crimes in the name of their competitors? So, what's so special about the online world that is suddenly going to embolden people to commit federal crimes?

Don't you think that if someone is misrepresenting Proctor & Gamble, the NY AG is going to go straight to P&G and get their full compliance in solving the crime?

And for the companies commiting the fraud, is it really worth putting their entire company on the line over a stupid adware stunt?

Re:How is this any different?

[einhverfr]

It is not a question of the "online" world per se but rather a question of how easy it is.

Most reputable companies won't do this for any number of reasons including risk and the fact that one can't pull lots of stunts like this and remain focused on your own core competencies. So I don't expect that such would be widespread.

But it could be done too readily IMO. And competitors are probably not at the top of the list. Disgruntled employees or former employees, unhappy customers, etc. could cause substantial damage.

The concern is mostly about the standard of the law. If you have preponderance of the evidence as your standard in civil procedures, then you have a jury deciding if a big company (say, like P&G) is hiding something in their accounting and really are behind it since they ultimately stand to gain from the fact that the ads are shown, and P&G saying that they have no record of any such contract and don't know where they are coming from. If the adware company had records of sending invoices to Proctor and Gamble at, say, at an old, outdated address of a branch office, then what do you believe? The problem is that you could conceivably start off (with a well-orchestrated hoax) with enough evidence to make it hard to surpass it simply by pleading ignorance.

Such a hoax would not be that technically difficult to orchestrate, and for a large company, it might be difficult to counter.

Re:How is this any different?

[fermion]

This is simply a way to stop the primary defense of corps: that our policy does not allow such actions, the contracted third party was not following policy,therefore the third party is to blame, not us.

Much of the outsourcing of major firms appears to be outsource risk. Walmart outsources janatorial servie, therefore Walmart is not liable for the fact that illigal aliens are cleaning thier stores, or the fact that thier demand for illigal alliens increases the demand for coyote, which increases cross border crime. MS outsources most software support to the reseller, so has little risk when the software does not work. Tax evaders, i.e. unpatriortic terrorist who want our soliers to die due to insuffecient equipment, outsource the risk associated with thier money laundering by having lawyer sign letter saying the they believe the criminal actvity is not actionable.

So, in this case, all the AG is saying is that at some point paying someone to go to jail for you will no longer acceptable. At some point we have to have the criminals in jails, not their proxies. Not that is not like a automatic blacklisted in which a spam will result in a reply to the the from: line. The AG will have humans researching the path of money and accociations.

Expedia just doesn't get it!

[tomhudson]

FTFA:

Some advertisers defend the practice.

"It is just a marketing tool that we use," said Expedia spokesman David Dennis.

So, maybe we can use the same line of reasoning for a DDoS of Expedia - "Its just an anti-spyware/adware measure that we use."

I swear, do companies go out of their way to hire the lowest-IQ, most mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging, slope-foreheaded idiot they can find to be company shill^Wspokesman, or is it a side-effect of the job?

Where is that Adware being used?

[ImaLamer]

Considering the software that often uses bundled adware and spyware is questionable at best (Kazaa at one time, other - more bogus - P2P software bundles) I wonder how much these Fortune 500 companies have funded even dirtier scams.

You know someone who has clicked a "free screensaver" or "system performance" pop-up before only to get trojans and adware. Does Circuit City endorse these scams on user intelligence? [Oxymoron I know]

Let's not even mention Compaq who bundles WeatherBug on their new machines!

Is it always going to be "us" versus the corporations? And why do I feel more libertarian and less "liberal" everyday?

I guess the solution is simple - start a list of people to boycott based on their aggressive advertising.

Re:Where is that Adware being used?

[Archangel_Azazel]

I've already started doing that with my circle of friends. I don't go to Wal-Mart, Circuit City, use MSFT (*sighs* other than windows...be gentle...) products, I don't go to Target either. I'm afraid that sometime soon though, I won't have anywhere left to shop!!!

A.A

Re:Where is that Adware being used?

[fermion]

You know, it would be nice if we tried to solve the problem by concentrating on the factors that acutaly cause harm rather than trying to put everything we don't like into the evil class.

There are things about malware that are very bad. They install without the users knowledge. There is no obvious way to remove the software. If the software is removed, there is often a backup that gets reinstalled, a la IE. There is no indication in the pop up windows about where they originate. If the software is removed, there might be a hidden bit left on the computer meant to collect information.

These are bad things. This is what the article was about, this is what the AG is prosecuting. If someone makes an application that can be used for free, and chooses to attach advertisment, that hardly rises to the level of malware, as long as the user knows the application was installed, and it can be completely removed. In the example of weatherbug, yes they should put a bigger notice on their page that the free version is adware, but that is a minor point.

If we try to combine all adware with Malware we will be in the same boat as Spam. Not all UCE should be treated as spam. Some UCE does have the proper headers, and one can properly harras the company that sent it. It is only the bogus UCE, or the misleading UCE, that needs to be destroyed. By trying to get rid of everything, we end up with no impovement.

Re:Where is that Adware being used?

[pete6677]

So where do you shop? It sounds like you've ruled out almost all large chain stores. Even small stores have been known to engage in shady behavior of some type, making it really hard to patronize only "good" businesses.

Re:Where is that Adware being used?

[SparksMcGee]

*More* Libertarian and less liberal? How does that make sense? the liberals in this country support greater regulation of corporate America and its soulless exploitation as opposed to limiting their taxation and accountability. This is an issue of concern for those trying to solve concerns of everyone rather for those endorsing the limitation of rights to complete freedom with the exception of physical harm. I will always oppose Policies like strict libertarianism that seek to equte economic freedom--which the capitalist experience repeatedly demonstrates cannot be used responsibly by corporate entities--with individual political freedom, which so far the US of A has done a damn fine job of protecting. Libertarianism would have us all worrying about our own asses and laud the companies for finding new revenue streams, regulation and the environment be damned.

Re:Where is that Adware being used?

[Arker]

Not all UCE should be treated as spam.

Ok, I agree, but not for the bogus reasons you gave.

Not all UCE is spam, but it's gotta be over 99%. Spam is UBE. Unsolicited Bulk Email. Doesn't matter if it's commercial or not (although most is.)

Re:Where is that Adware being used?

[Archangel_Azazel]

Mostly local stores where I get to know the owners, they usually don't have enough of a customer base to make mass marketing / spamming profitable. And I get the added benefit of usually getting some kind of discount after a little while of frequenting there ;-)

A.A

Great News!

[E0D77]

AH the tried an true method that always works.

To kill the snake one only needs to find the head and remove it from the body.

The only questiosn left then is who cleans up the mes when it is all over with?

bout time

[Chanc_Gorkon]

About friggin time. I see so many companies I used to consider legit that I now hae to question whether I should do business with them any more. Spam from the University of Phoenix, Bank Cards from legit companies being peddled via spam, and ad ware. This stuff has to stop.

Why expect so much from Capital One?

[AFCArchvile]

But the last straw came a year ago when the pop-ups began plugging such household names as J.C. Penney Co. and Capital One Financial Corp., companies McMann expected to know better.

So this person expects Capital One, a company known for making the corniest commercials on TV, and a participant in the national scheme pushing limitless interest rates and exorbitant fees, to not engage in adware? I'd expect Capital One to be one of the FIRST and BIGGEST users of adware, popups, and direct marketing.

They put David Spade on our television screens two years longer than necessary; that alone is evil enough!

Eliot Spitzer == Superhero?

[adam31]

I feel like he should walk around with a mask and fluorescent yellow-and-orange spandex and wear a cape with a Red E emblazoned within a square... That guy is like the last real American hero.

Although, I doubt he could actually bring successful legal action against the 'household-name advertisers'... hopefully the threat is enough to choke off the money flow. Who cares about all the spigots when you can shut down the water main?

Re:Eliot Spitzer == Superhero?

[ctr2sprt]

First, I wouldn't be too quick to label him a hero. He's got bigger plans in mind, like being governor of NY. A lot of these sorts of things are pure publicity stunts to get him name recognition.

Second, his tactics for "doing good" are problematic at best. He is using popular sentiment to alter the meaning and scope of existing laws, often in ways that the authors of those laws never intended. In doing so, he's bypassing the checks and balances of our government. The judicial branch is supposed to enforce laws, not write them (and Spitzer is effectively writing or rewriting law). If you want a new law written, or an existing law changed, that's supposed to be handled by the legislative branch.

Third, as I implied earlier, Spitzer is tapping into peoples' fears and anger to get stuff done. How many good decisions have you ever made when you were afraid or angry? Hell, consider the popular Slashdot target of the PATRIOT Act. The bill might still pass if it were introduced today, but it would certainly face a much rockier path. Most people here hate Bush not just for supporting the bill in the first place, they hate him for exploiting our fears post-9/11 to get it passed. Well, Spitzer's doing the exact same thing. Except instead of playing on the fears and anger of Congresscritters, he's playing on the fears and anger of a jury.

No matter how much good Spitzer may be doing, he is doing it in the absolute wrong way. And if he is ultimately successful, it will only encourage emulators who will further degrade our government. Unless he changes his tactics, I will never support anything he wants to do, even if (as in this case) I would really like to see it happen.

Re:Eliot Spitzer == Superhero?

[JonToycrafter]

Could you go into detail about how you feel Spitzer is effectively writing or rewriting laws?

Maybe I don't have all the facts, but all I see is that Spitzer makes choices as to which laws he'll enforce more vigorously than others. I'm not saying that's right either, but since it's unavoidable under the current system, it's far more forgivable than what you're suggesting he does.

Major Advertisers Caught In Spyware Net

[Jesus_666]

So far, law enforcement has mostly targeted the transmitters, but NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is threatening to hold accountable household-name advertisers that use adware networks. No longer, says Spitzer, can companies play dumb.

Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?

Re:Guts in law?

[Bill Walker]

Don't count your chickens before they hatch. Spitzer has a habit of bullying executives into settling with the company's money rather than face a personal criminal trial. He lost his one high profile case that actually made it to court.

I'd guess this'll be a settlement, too. Spitzer will get publicity, NY State will get some money, but very little in terms of actual penalties will be imposed.

Re:Elliot Spitzer

[Anonymous Coward]

Elliot Spitzer doesn't give a damn about standing up for "regular folkes", all he cares about is being elected governor in a few years.

Re:Opera is adware

[ImaLamer]

That is the exception that proves the rule.

If companies are upfront then they usually avoid the stigma (think Divx).

No problem whatsoever.

[bani]

It is much harder to trace the source of the ads themselves.

No it is not. Follow the money trail. Search warrants and subpoenas on bank records, etc.

Money talks, and in this case it leads law enforcement right to the doorstep of the exact source responsible for the ads.

Someone has to pay the transmitters after all. They don't work for free.

Re:Guts in law?

[the eric conspiracy]

but very little in terms of actual penalties will be imposed.

So you are saying that these guys don't view losing gobs of money as an actual penalty?

Don't forget that Spitzer also has a knack of driving down the stock price of the companies he goes after, so these guys are getting hit personally too.

No different than the widely-ignored anti-fax laws

[bani]

This is really no different than the widely-ignored anti-fax laws.

The laws on the books state prohibit a company sending faxes to someone who explicitly tells you not to.

Yet we get deluged with hundreds of spam faxes a week. Over and over and over from the same companies. Many with blocked or deliberately falsified caller ID.

Law enforcement doesn't stop junk faxers, I don't see why it will stop spammers.

End benefactor rule

[whoppers]

The same thing is happening with the bandit signs you see along the roads in the public rights-of-way. Laws originally were enacted to go after the person placing the signs and since these are usually lower income/education folks, they line up for this type of work and the signs never stop.

Now many states are starting to go after big-name homebuilders, one homebuilder in Florida was recently fined $49,000 for over a hundred signs.

This NY AG guy seems alright to me.

Re:End benefactor rule

[Xwild]

I'm a resident of NY, and I'd have to say, he IS a good guy from what I've heard in the news.

When northern NY was hit by the massive ice storm in 1998, Spitzer laid down the law on price gouging really quick. And even went so far as to get peoples money refunded.http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2000/dec /dec11a_00.html

Check out his office's website at http://www.oag.state.ny.us/ Quite possibly the most helpful gov't webpage I've ever been on. Yeah, Spitzer is a good AG.. and I'm a Republican no less!

Re:End benefactor rule

[MC68000]

Spitzer isn't perfect. Check out his now dismissed lawsuits against the gun industry.

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getFiles.asp?Sty le=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS /2003/06/30&ID=Ar00601

We know you have a choice in travel agencies

[Dachannien]

Wonder if Travelocity keeps their hands clean? I know Orbitz certainly doesn't.

Re:We know you have a choice in travel agencies

[tomhudson]

Expedia.ca has such a low reputation up here that "This Hour Has 22 Minutes" (a CBC comedey) did a satire of them:

Expedient.ca

Him: "Look honey, we'll have dinner in San Francisco, then a cruise on this cruise ship, where I'll push you off the bow, then wipe down the rail, report you missing, and collect the insurance."

Her: "Wow, we're going to San Francisco!"

Announcer: You can book your travel, hire your hitman, get your rubber gloves, establish your alibi, all through Expedient.ca

Re:Did anyone actually read the summary?

[aprilsound]

period should be a comma... of course that makes the whole thing a run on, perhaps the submiter thought it the less of two grammatical errors?

but seriously, editors, you can't possibly be reading these submissions. if you are, don't accept a summary that you have to read more than once to understand. is that too much to ask?

I'm really starting to like this Spitzer guy

[AndyChrist]

He seems to really look out for the little guy.

Plus he is perhaps the creepiest looking man alive. That is also cool.

Re:Guts in law?

[Bill Walker]

It's only a penalty if the settlement amounts to more than they made in doing whatever Spitzer sued them for. Otherwise it's a cost of doing business.

Wait for the figure to be announced and make your own call.

The anti-FAX law is DIY!

[antispam_ben]

This is really no different than the widely-ignored anti-fax laws.

The laws on the books state prohibit a company sending faxes to someone who explicitly tells you not to.

It's worse than that. It's against the law if they don't have a business relationship. If explicitely told not to, the damages are triple.

Yet we get deluged with hundreds of spam faxes a week. Over and over and over from the same companies. Many with blocked or deliberately falsified caller ID.

Law enforcement doesn't stop junk faxers,

HUH? From what I've read of the Junk Fax law, law enforcement has nothing to do with it. It was my understanding you can take a junk faxer to court, point out the law to the Judge and get $500 PER UNSOLICITED FAX (BEFORE you tell them to stop), or even $1,500 PER FAX if you (can prove you) had already told them to stop. This gives you a judgement against them - if they don't pay, you can get their wages garnished and have similar things done to get the money out of them. It sure seems worth it to me.

Washington State passed a very similar anti-spam law a few years ago, and there was a news item where a recipient in Washington State got an out-of-state spammer to pay up as per the law.

Why don't more people do this to junk faxers?

Googling for junk fax law and a couple clicks brings up these pertinent links:

The Junk Fax Law (portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991):
http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/usc.htm

Example demand letter:
http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/demandltr.htm

In /. terms:

1. Buy fax machine and dedicated phone line.
2. Add "FAX: [fax phone number] (for C++ code only)" to webpage
3. ...
4. Profit $$$

Re:Opera is adware

[julesh]

That is the exception that proves the rule.

No, it isn't. I've used many pieces of software that were supported by advertisements. Most of them did no harm to my computer (a few installed software that was so badly written it made my computer very unstable and therefore had to be removed, but that is the worst that happened).

It is unfortunate that the actions of a minority number of adware programs have brought the entire field into disrepute, but that's what has happened.

Re:Did anyone actually read the summary?

[julesh]

It's a sentence fragment. Put into a complete sentence, it would read "[Another company doing this was] Mercedes-Benz before [they], fielding complaints, put on the brakes."

I agree it's badly written, but it does just about make sense if you look at it hard enough. :)

Make Money Fast?

[imkonen]

Okay...so none of the companies funding this crap wants to take responsibility:

"There's plausible deniability at each tier," said Chris King, product marketing manager at anti-spyware vendor Blue Coat Systems Inc.

If they hire subcontracts to spend their advertising budget and don't want to know how the money is being spent, they deserve to get ripped off. I hope some of these guys just pocket the money with nothing more than a "Oh...yea...the ad's going out all over the internet...but..you don't REALLY want to know the details, right?"

Re:Elliot Spitzer

[durdur]

He is certainly ambitious. But compare what he has done to get restitution for consumers to what the Federal govt. has done. He has been way more aggressive than the SEC in going after finacial malfeasance. He got over a billion dollar settlement with Wall St. for issuing research reports that pumped up dodgy dot-com companies during the boom, for example. So I think he is effective, in fact he's been actually restoring the balance of power between citizens and corporations, which, believe me, is not even on Bush's agenda, quite the opposite.

SMTP

[svallarian]

Why don't we (as techies) get off our asses and force everyone to use authenticated SMTP?

Then spam would drop, and rather quickly.

Have you ever wondered about this?

[cr0sh]

I don't know about your viewpoints or political affiliations, nor do I care. I'll let you live in peace if you let me do the same, is that fair?

What I mean to say is - why is it always "either-or"? Why is it always assumed that if you are one way, you must be against the other?

Why is it impossible in many people's minds that a person could be pro-second amendment and pro-choice at the same time? Or any other seemingly "that ain't right" combination?

Furthermore, how many of such people are there? We never hear about this side (the "third" side?) of the debate, those who hold seemingly contradictory (at least according to polls, one assumes) viewpoints - so will we ever know how many there are? Perhaps that is the point?