Slashdot Mirror
Going From Gator to Claria
Ant writes "Wired News has an article on the famous spyware company that went from Gator to Claria. From the article: 'Three years ago the company was considered a parasite and a scourge. Today it's a rising star -- selling virtually the same product. How a pop-up pariah won the adware wars.'" The name change happened about two years ago, and a lot has changed since then.
Is it because the High Priest Microsoft deemed Claria Clean?
One ring to bind them - should probably have more fiber and less rings in their diet.
Few people in the online business community question the idea that marketing software should track user behavior. Lydia Parnes, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, says it's possible to track people online without being underhanded. The FTC is in favor of online advertising, she explains, "and sometimes tracking makes advertising work better for consumers." Esther Dyson, who has been harshly critical of spyware companies in her influential newsletter, Release 1.0, agrees. "As long as there's disclosure and people are given a choice, I think monitoring users' behavior isn't a problem," she says.
The problem is, the online business community never asked the right question. What they need in that disclosure is "Are you willing to give up half the bandwidth and computer memory you paid for so that we can serve you advertising?"
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
How a pop-up pariah won the adware wars.
- Won? The tech savy people ditched IE for Firefox, Opera or simply moved to Linux, so the tech savy people "won". The non tech savy people had no clue WTF was Gator, nothing changed today, they have no clue who Claria, 180 and other scumware makers are. All they know that their PC is spamming them with p0rn and it's slower. Not to mention they accept this blindly. Face it, 90% of computer users are too lazy, don't care and/or clueless.
Not enough has changed until these types of programs are illegal, and the executives of the companies that make them are serving Enron prison sentences.
They are human scum of the worst possible kind. High Priests in the religion of capitalist greed.
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
From the fine article: "Earlier this year, The New York Times reported that Microsoft came close to acquiring Claria." Guess what that means, folks?
Socialism: A feeling of discontent and resentment caused by a desire for the possessions or qualities of another.
And how they use the name "Altria Group" when possible. I like how that name almost sounds like the word "altruistic" even though they're making billions by killing people.
Though I am a fellow hater of Gator/Claria, I don't actually disagree with your quote from Lydia Parnes. For instance, I like the way Gmail does it. It doesn't install ANYTHING client-side, so it's not wasting my computing resources, and if a Webmail service is going to show me ads to make it viably profitable, at least this one is going to show me ones that are more likely to be stuff I'm interested in.
The issue with the model that Claria uses is that there is a simpler, more effective, and less intrusive way to serve relevant ads to people: make sure they are related to the page they are displayed on. No user tracking required and a much better clickthrough rate.
Just like Cornelius Vanderbilt, Andrew Carnegie, James D. Rockefeller, and Leland Stanford did i the past, Claria is trying to do good to pave over all the ill deeds they performed to get them to where they are now.
If the effort to change their ways is sincere, then they can be forgiven. As comments thus far have shown, proving that can be pretty hard to do.
To say that they've won the war is like saying that Japan won the war when they bombed Pearl Harbor. I'm fairly certain that every tech support guy, network administrator and general techno-geek goes out of thier way to crush, kill, and remove every piece of spyware they can find. I know that I do.
The only thing they won is the attention of the media, and the sales from people who click on everything and anything they see...in short, the kind of people you wish you could set up a Linux box, lock them out of everything more dangerous than thier web browser, and never let them know the root password.
Morons.
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
Also, the eula's of all of these garbage programs can't possibly be considered informed consent... could they?
And finally, as a programmer, it just flat out pisses me off that people use their coding talents (and I see it as a talent as well as a skill) for such a crappy cause.
A Haiku: my language choices/assembler pascal lisp c/old school programmer
If it uninstalls completely using the "add and remove programs" control panel (even if you have to rid yourself of the "free" software it hitcbed a ride on)... then there's no real problem. Except when people are sued for expressing their honest opinion about their beliefs on "adware". We should still have the option of free speech even if it hurt someones profit, especially if it is an honest opinion of the product.
This Wired article is full of misinformation, and reads like a press release from the Claria public relations department.
Here's the truth.
1. The perception: Spyware continues to be perceived as a huge threat. Just look at the Sony fiasco (a google search for "sony spyware" returns 18,600,000 hits). The anti-spyware market place continues to be active, with lots of competing products, and new players are still appearing.
2. The reality: Spyware continues to make workstations slower and less stable. Spyware phone-home traffic continues to suck up large amounts of bandwidth on corporate networks, if you don't have good protection installed. And Claria continues to be part of the problem, not part of the solution. Anti-spyware products continue to detect, block and remove Claria spyware.
3. The article implies that anti-spyware vendors are no longer protecting against Claria. That's certainly not true for the anti-spyware products that my company ships, and it's not true for other products I've tested. Although Wired puts the well-known spin on Windows anti-spyware (OMG Microsoft is in bed with Claria), it continues to detect Claria, it still warns you if you try to install it, and it still gives you the option to remove it.
Now, it's true that Claria software is slightly less abusive of your computer than it used to be, and Microsoft did downgrade the threat level based on this change in behaviour. But the fact that Claria has made their software less egregious does not mean that "spyware has won". It means that the anti-spyware crusaders are having an effect on corporate behaviour. Just as they are now having an effect on Sony's behaviour.
Doug Moen
I have written a truly remarkable program which this sig is too small to contain.
You should read the article. It's fairly objective in what it has to say. The article goes into detail about how the company has changed its image, but still does almost the same thing it did.
I did not feel the article was giving Claria any positive recognition about their current business practices at all.
Steps to regaining legitimacy
When did they ever have legitimacy?
The day that Google sells my info to bombard me with pop-ups and silent software installs is the day that I'll treat them like Gator. In the meantime, I'll treat them like Google.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
I know a lot of people still boycott Wired for that shit they pulled a while back (sending out unrequested subscriptions, then sending the bills to a collection agency), so here's a mirror
Does it still count as a boycott if you copy and paste the article? Is that not akin to boycotting Disney, for example, only to look over someone's shoulder to watch [insert rehashed movie here]? You did not [buy the movie/see the ads on the site], but you're still propagating their presence in the marketplace.
Google does not eat my bandwith
...
Google does not slow down my PC without my knowledge
Google does not pop up ads whenever I visit other sites
Google's about page is not hidden
I can use Google whenever I want
I do not have to uninstall Google from my PC, if I choose not to use Google anymore
You do not use Google by accident
People who use Google do so intentionally and are happy with the results
Friends do no ask me for help, cause their PC got infested by Google
Problem is that they are also doing things like shutting down webpages which state that Gator/Claira's program makes people's computers run slowly. Personally I still hate the idea because I'm sure the software is still too inconspicuous/sneaky to let a normal pc user know what is going on..
Why the publishers of this crap aren't prosecuted for distributing a virus is beyond me. Seriously, what the hell is the difference? It replaces system files and corrupts the registry, which is about as bad as anything a "virus" does. The fact that it kills off anti-spyware programs is pretty much proof that it is unwanted spyware.
An advertiser does not have the right to install a sign on your property advertising their product without your permission. If we can get a law that states that our computers and web browser are personal property, then they no longer have the right (not that the have that right in the first place) to place a popup when you're browsing without tresspassing. The only reason this will never fly is because a website is property of other people and they choose to allow popups, no different than the neigbor across the street can give them permission to display the billboard on their property wheter you like it or not.
At some point, the line has to be drawn legally. Perhaps the property argument can only be extended as far as it actually modifies your PC, sans Sony Rootkit DRM and other malware. But it would be nice if it can be extended to your web browser, also.
Thanks,
Leabre