Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Major Advertisers Caught In Spyware Net

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the spitzer's-bid-for-governor dept.

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."

35 of 144 comments (clear)

  1. excellent by choongiri · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG by einhverfr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG by CommiePuddin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      x = x + ++x; //It's golden.
    2. Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG by Thanatopsis · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Thalasar
    3. Re:I see a problem with this approach by the NY AG by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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."

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
  3. how bloody convenient... by advocate_one · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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...

    --
    Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
    1. Re:how bloody convenient... by bckrispi · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

      --
      Xenon, where's my money? -Borno
    2. Re:how bloody convenient... by Will_Malverson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      '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".

  4. I hope this works out... by Kagura · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  5. "Follow the money" by PornMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    500GB of disk, 5TB of transfer, $5.95/mo
  6. Good info from Ben Edelman by Hulkster · · Score: 4, Informative
    Ben Edelman has been writing about *&^%$#@! 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! ;-)

  7. Trust no one. by Recovering+Hater · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

    --
    My humor is probably your flamebait
    1. Re:Trust no one. by flood6 · · Score: 3, Insightful
      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.

      --
      SEO Firefox Extension
  8. This happens more than you know by demonic-halo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:This happens more than you know by rhizome · · Score: 4, Insightful

      >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.

      --
      When I was a kid, we only had one Darth.
    2. Re:This happens more than you know by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:This happens more than you know by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
      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?
    4. Re:This happens more than you know by Reaperducer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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.

      --
      -- I'm old enough to have lived through six different meanings of the word "hacker."
    5. Re:This happens more than you know by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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).

  9. Re:Guts in law? by tomhudson · · Score: 2, Interesting
    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!

  10. Is Spitzer our last hope for America? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    :) 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.

  11. How is this any different? by artemis67 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:How is this any different? by fermion · · Score: 2, Insightful
      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.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
  12. Expedia just doesn't get it! by tomhudson · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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?

  13. Where is that Adware being used? by ImaLamer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

    --
    Get your Unix fortune now!
  14. Why expect so much from Capital One? by AFCArchvile · · Score: 4, Interesting
    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!

    --
    "Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
  15. Eliot Spitzer == Superhero? by adam31 · · Score: 4, Funny
    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?

  16. Re:Guts in law? by Bill+Walker · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    --
    Please, for the love of God, no more car analogies.
  17. No problem whatsoever. by bani · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  18. Re:Guts in law? by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  19. No different than the widely-ignored anti-fax laws by bani · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  20. End benefactor rule by whoppers · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:End benefactor rule by Xwild · · Score: 4, Informative
      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!

  21. The anti-FAX law is DIY! by antispam_ben · · Score: 3, Informative

    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 $$$

    --
    Tag lost or not installed.
  22. Re:Elliot Spitzer by durdur · · Score: 2, Insightful

    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.