Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Denies Claria got Spyware Exception
daria42 writes "Microsoft has denied its AntiSpyware application has given adware-maker Claria special treatment. The denial has been issued amid reports MS is looking to buy Claria, and is in response to security researchers' reports stating AntiSpyware had downgraded the threat level posed by Claria's adware products. The downgrade in threat level merely represented an effort to be "fair and consistent with how Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) handles similar software from other vendors," according to a statement published by Microsoft." As reader jfengel writes, though, "they neglected to mention what software that might be, nor did they publish the analysis."
There's some really excellent analysis on this by Ed Bott.
Compare and contrast to the lies and misdirection spread (as is normal), by Microsoft's resident spin doctor Robert Scoble. See his Ballmer interview, aka, The Idiots Guide to Brownnosing, to see his true colors.
Lots of Gator-bashing is rightly occurring all over the MSDNosphere, see here for a funny example. Remember, even Microsoft employees (commenting anonymously, of course) hate this idea.
I'm guessing that Microsoft will somehow integrate Claria's obnoxious 'personal marketing' tactics into Internet Explorer 7 or the new RSS functions to get a chunk of the targeted intarweb ad market which Adsense has completely sewn up for normal web pages. We should go and tell them what we think about Claria and Gator, not to mention their general business ethics. Don't let Scoble's lies deceive you, and don't hold back.
The real issue here is Microsoft abusing their position of trust within the general computer user community. No, I'm not talking about people like us here...I'm talking about Ma and Pa Computer User...the ones who see a virus or spyware warning and panic. Many of these people rely upon the recommendations offered by the spyware detection/removal applications to decide on how best to manage their systems. By artificially upgrading Claria products from 'remove' to 'ignore', Microsoft is taking unfair advantage of these users' trust.
Also from TFA:As far as I'm aware, no other spyware removal application has promoted Claria products in this fashion. Until Microsoft publishes these 'objective criteria', and shows how Claria products managed to get upgraded from 'remove' to 'ignore' under them, we will have no choice but to assume more ulterior motives.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
"We firmly believe that people should have complete control over what runs on their computers," Microsoft added."
Well, 10 million compromised windowsboxes seems to contradict that belief.
Underholdning.info
It's a bird...it's a plane...it's AstroTurfMan!
Microsoft's AntiSpyware worked well because Microsoft didn't write it...Giant did. Back before Microsoft got their hooks into it, it was a fine piece of sofware...past tense.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
The small print says they may not be actual spyware, but potentially dangerous items, most unknowledgable people will just remove them anyway, because it's the default option.
'For we walk by faith, not by sight.' II Corinthians 5:7
PS. M$ sucks.
It's not a fine piece of software. It _was_ one and it has been intentionally made otherwise.
I'm keeping my tinfoil hat firmly on. Imagine if Ford bought the company that checks for defects in cars, and the next week all Ford defects were considered as desirable behavior. Imagine if Monsanto bought the company that decides whether Bovine Growth Hormone is bad for you, and the next week it was announced that BGH is just fine... actually, you don't really have to imagine that.
This is a tiny attempt to extend to the software industry what is already standard in the 'traditional' industries; the use of quality and safety regulating entities to discourage competition rather than to protect the consumer.
I _will_ say that I don't expect MS to be as evil about it as Monsanto et al for a good many years yet.
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Does anyone know of any OSS that is dedicated to the removal of ad-ware and spyware. . .
I manage a number of windows machines at the office and wit he recent declassification's without good explanation that has occurred in the sector i have lost all faith in most of the products
An OSS solution would be wonderful (hell i would rather switch the machines to linux , but that is not an option right now due to certain programs that are required by the company)
Commercial solutions always to me seem rather susceptible to legal action for the classification and or bribery.
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
For me, I am interested in open source spyware removal. I would like a product designed by people with a mindset like mine (anti all spyware). One of the issues is that anti-spyware/virus companies are getting sued by adware companies for slander etc. for calling the adware, well, adware.
That is part of why a program that installs itself, logs your keystokes, saves your credit card info, and turns on your webcam while you are in the shower is a "petentially unwanted program" As long as anti-adware companies are suable entities, we are going to have these issues in addition to absolutely egregious issues like MS buying a spyware company.
Next thing you know Cancer will have to be called "potentially unwated cells."
And let us not be of the mindset, if people can't figure out how to keep spyware off their computer, they deserve it. A lot of those people are our parents and grandparents.
Can you imagine spyware clippy- It looks like you are writing a letter to a bankruptcy attorney. Would you like me to set you up with my rich exiled Nigerian uncle?
And All I Ask is a Tall Ship And a Star to Steer Her By
So MS denies something they clearly did wrong, what's new?
You, sir, are entirely unfair!
Microsoft clearly said The downgrade in threat level merely represented an effort to be "fair and consistent with how Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) handles similar software from other vendors,"
It's entirely consistent. Microsoft has consistently held their software offerings to, ahem, an improved standard.
I mean, have you ever looked at how Microsoft's C++ compilers, um, pioneered their own standard, entirely different -- and, so long as you don't like correct exception handling, consistent RTTI, or the availability of a Standard library, entirely better -- from the ANSI/ISO standard. Or look at the, um, improvements to JavaScript and the browser DOM.
Or just look at the XML for Word docs. Ok, well absent a non-disclosure agreement you can't actually look at it, but trust Microsoft it's entirely consistently inconsistent with anything else out there.
How anyone can say Microsoft isn't being consistent in its approach I just don't understand at all.
Opinions on the Twiddler2 hand-held keyboard?
This all makes sense when you realize one key, critical piece of information.
First, a quote:
Has Microsoft given in to vendors' threats? Or forgotten how badly "adware" damages the Windows experience (ultimately encouraging users to switch to other platforms)?
Now, the key, critical piece of information.
Microsoft's anti-spy ware devision is headed by a MAC user! You see, MAC zealots have infiltrated the Microsoft hierarchy, and are plotting it's downfall from within.
As a matter of fact, this is a pervasive presence, weaving into all levels of the company.
Think about it. Doesn't Clippy make much more sense as MAC sabotage than as an actual feature? No doubt someone floated a mock up with the note, "Looks just like something I saw at the last MAC expo."
Architecture changes that mean the XBOX II won't be able to run XBOX games, the endless delays in Longhorn, the XP default theme, the differences between XP Home and XP Pro, these are all contributed by MAC users who are gradually whittling away Microsoft from within.
And because Microsoft has been shamelessly copying the MAC for so long, all they have to do is float the rumor that MAC is going to do something, and Microsoft programmers and management throw themselves into trying to replicate it, or at least toss together a half asses rip-off of the feature / technology.
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
That's actually the principle cause of all their problems. They don't have an adequate trust model for modern computing, being stuck in the single-user era.
Raise your children as if you were teaching them to raise your grandchildren, because you are.
Microsoft is only a Marketing Company, I hear that alot, and it makes sense.
When microsoft bought Giant their antispyware program was one of the best. When microsoft re-launched it under Microsoft AntiSpyware (and marketed as a new product), it got raving reviews.
The effects are that people will start to trust MS antispyware, and will be starting to ditch their other antispyware programs. As soon as the majority of the people are used to the program, microsoft can dictate their own terms to what is spyware and what is not. Ofcourse microsoft will never go too far, but the changes will be "subtle", not enough to get angry about and still have solid bunch of supporters defending the program for microsoft.
Amen to that.
..... there wouldn't need to be one, would there? We could just comment out the spyware-ish bits before compiling, and distribute the resulting patchfile. On Gentoo, that would probably be part of the ebuild scripts. OK then, what about Open Source spyware removal for Windows?
Where is the Open Source anti-adware, anti-spyware stuff? I don't see a spyware removal tool for Linux. Oh
But the point is that all the Open Source software available for Windows is there by accident. It wasn't written for Windows, it just was ported to Windows from some unix variant. Nobody writes GPL software with Windows in mind -- it's just that some Windows user manages, with more or less effort, to persuade it to compile, and is obliged by the licence to make the source available. {If anybody persuaded BSD-licenced code to compile under Windows, they probably would keep it closed-source -- and maybe even disable some options in an effort to extort money out of users}.
My computer is my property, and I have the right to determine what software runs on it. Installing software without my explicit consent is at least trespass {which is a civil offence and grounds to sue} and may constitute criminal damage {which is a crime, so dial 999 and let the police deal with it}. These things were already offences long before computer-specific legislation was passed. The use of confusing language to persuade someone to install software may additionally constitute Burglary Artifice. If it's a Crown Court, then the odds are in your favour -- out of a jury of 12 people, how likely do you think it is that none or only one have experienced PC trouble due to spyware?
You know, I often wonder what would life have been like if, way back in early 1976, some members of the Homebrew Computer Club had dragged Bill Gates {the author of that letter} into the gents' and given him a bloody good hiding. That has to be my second choice for an "if I could alter the course of history" fantasy.
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
Interesting comment, which reminded me of a story:
I once worked for a bank, where there was a computer that processed all electronic banking files. The majority of the programs on this computer were written by a guy I worked with. This guy considered himself a programming god, while I thought he was below average.
Now, one of the quite critical programs that ran on this computer was in the habit of crashing occasionally. The guy attributed this to an OS fluke, and instead of debugging the program and resolving the error, he wrote a program that simply checked whether the crashing program was running, and if it wasn't, would restart it.
Without our department knowing, the crashes increased in frequency. We didn't know this, because the crashing program was restarted all the time. Unfortunately, at a certain point in time the crashes occurred about every few seconds, and our system basically went down. I was part of the team that analysed and resolved the problem, and, of course, we found that it was a basic DESIGN flaw in the crashing program. I won't go into details, but basically, with some knowledge of file transfer protocols, this flaw would have been avoided.
Now, why is this story on topic? Because Windows is JUST like this crashing program, Microsoft is JUST like the guy who wrote the crashing program, and AntiSpam/AntiVirus/Firewalls are JUST like the program that restarted the crashing program.
What I expect to find, in the not-too-distant future, is that our Windows systems will simply stop running because the patch programs need all computing resources to keep Windows from going down. And the only way to resolve this, is a redesign. Which should be done by people who know how to design a good system, and not by a marketing company.