Slashdot Mirror


Feds Asked to Take Action Against Adware Creator

An anonymous reader writes "CNet is reporting that a consumer watchdog group has asked the Federal Trade Commission to take action against 180solutions and CJB.net for unfair and deceptive business practices. The Center for Democracy and Technology submitted over 150 pages of examples of 180s bad practices." From the article: "180Solutions deliberately and repeatedly duped Internet users into downloading intrusive advertising software, according to a Center for Democracy and Technology complaint (download PDF). The company continued these practices even after it pledged to better itself and after receiving warnings from spyware experts and privacy advocates, the group said."

240 comments

  1. and it won't matter... by flakier · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...because they will say something like it was their "partners" that engaged in the deceptive practices. Then they will say that they will watch their partners more closely in the future.

    --
    --
    1. Re:and it won't matter... by StupidHelpDeskGuy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, because the folks in Washington never change their mind. Especially if their chances for relection are hindered. It will matter eventually, we just have to keep fighting.

    2. Re:and it won't matter... by mordors9 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it won't matter because their is no public outcry yet at this point. Most non-Slashdot computer users seem to look at it as part of life. Nor are any of the corporate interests flexing their muscles to get the government hopping.

    3. Re:and it won't matter... by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's no public outcry because 90% of users don't know what's actually happening. "Oh, I hate these darn ads!" they'll say, but they don't know why they are there or that they can easily get rid of them. I am constantly amazed by the level of computer knowledge people demonstrate, despite the fact they are parked in front of one 8-10 hours per day. In fact, a good PhD Engineering friend of mine IMs me and asks if the web server is down, he wanted to look up someone's address on the site directory. I told him yes it was down and gave him the email address. He then asks: "Well, if the website is down, can I still email them?"

      People are learning, I'll admit, but even "saavy" users don't really know much about spyware, adware, viruses, hijacking, firewalls, etc. Have they heard of them? Maybe. But they don't really know how to deal with them or even what to look for.

    4. Re:and it won't matter... by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 1
      Spy/adware costs buisnesses money. This is a fact.

      However, spyware also generates revenue for companies invested in providing spyware solutions. Make a list of companies that either directly benefit from spyware by selling anti-spyware software (be sure to include companies that distribute various forms of partial or pure malware disguised as anti-spyware), then add to that list all the companies that benefit indirectly by adding "value" to their software in the form of anti-spyware/security features.

      Get the picture?

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    5. Re:and it won't matter... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >He then asks: "Well, if the website is down, can I still email them?"

      This doesn't prove anything about your PhD friend's level of computer knowledge. If the web server is down, in most cases there's a good bet that the email server is also down. Why? Most small organizations host apache and sendmail on the same physical machine; if the machine is under DDoS attack or is down for maintenance, then both the webpage and email will be unavailable. If one of the servers is down for a reason other than described, it usually implies that the admins have no fscking clue, so either or both could be down for days or weeks.

      Hint: "Can I still email them?" does not mean "is it possible for me to send the mail to my SMTP server, which may or may not be able to forward the mail to the proper destination". It means "will they receive the mail in a timely manner, and will they be able to reply to me, or should I pick up the phone?"

    6. Re:and it won't matter... by halcyon1234 · · Score: 5, Interesting
      it won't matter because their is no public outcry yet at this point. Most non-Slashdot computer users seem to look at it as part of life. Nor are any of the corporate interests flexing their muscles to get the government hopping.

      Actually, it won't matter because even though we (tech savy, anti-malware consumers) are the vast majority of the marketplace, we are the vast minority of Crapware 180's "customers".

      What power do we really have? A boycott won't work. None of us buy thier "products" anyways. The Malware makers income is all based on being paid by shady or downright illegal companies for advertisments. And all of those companies rely on uninfomred (read: stupid) people seeing those ads and responding to them. It may not be many people, but it's enough to make a profit. (After all, when you're either a) selling snake oil or b) stealing people's money/credit card numbers/identity/whatever, only a few suckers are needed to make a profit).

      So we can't do any economical harm to them through the usual methods. We can't boycott products, or refuse to shop at the advertised merchants. And even if one or two of those merchants get nailed/go bankrupt/whatever, there will be 500 more right behind them, all waiting to get their share of the sucker pie.

      Corporations aren't going to do anything about it, either. None of the "merchants" are their direct competators. Those corps are focusing on "ligitamate" consumers (ie: us). They don't see Crapware 180 as a competator. They may see it as a minor nusicence to their own networks. But keep in mind that there are SEVERAL corporations who's business model depends on the existence of black hat advertisers. (After all, with no spyware infested computers, there's no way to see spyware removal programs/services...).

      So the government can try to step in and blow up Crapware 180, or any of their ilk, but it'll only go so far. Most of those companies have gone to great lengths to (just barely) stay within the letter of the law (or at least, snuggled safely in a nest of loopholes). Any action they can try to take would get tied up for years, if not decades, in the courts. Crapware 180 will make enough money to survive the legal actions. And, in the worst case, they can fold and secretly/illegaly shuffle their money away, only to pop up again as another company.

      Personally, I still think that a user supported massive attack on the spyware companies will do any good. Something like the Make Love Not Spam screensaver from a year or so ago. Either DDoS the servers to hell (of the merchants or the adware provider, whichever), or some form of massive "click fraud" type attack against the merchants to make it too expensive to operate. (No profit = no companies).

    7. Re:and it won't matter... by John+Hurliman · · Score: 1

      He then asks: "Well, if the website is down, can I still email them?"

      If you send an e-mail to user@domain.com and the server hosting domain.com is down, after a certain length of time won't the e-mail bounce back in to your mailbox? Seems like a valid question to me, unless of course they were trying to e-mail user@hotmail.com.

    8. Re:and it won't matter... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      If you send an e-mail to user@domain.com and the server hosting domain.com is down, after a certain length of time won't the e-mail bounce back in to your mailbox? Seems like a valid question to me, unless of course they were trying to e-mail user@hotmail.com.

      No. There isn't one server hosting domain.com, and mail is handled differently anyway. If the mail server is down, it gets returned after about 4 days.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    9. Re:and it won't matter... by biobogonics · · Score: 1

      it won't matter because there is no public outcry yet at this point

      Maybe there will be. See the story on CNN about the botnet hacker who is accused of selling zombies infected with software from a 180Solutions subsidiary:

      http://www.cnn.com/2006/TECH/internet/01/23/hacker .ap/index.html

    10. Re:and it won't matter... by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You could boycot the companies that advertise on their software, if they are the sort of mainstream companies you might buy from otherwise.

    11. Re:and it won't matter... by aAbBcCdDeEfFgG · · Score: 1

      You know, we might be able to make a difference. File a small claims suite against these guys for the damages to the systems. It would cost about $50.00 in most municipalities. you would need to serve them via mail. If they fight it in any way they are expending resources. If they don't fight it, which is more probable, you will get a default judgment in your favor. Unless they have an office location in your state you will most likely not be able to collect on the judgment. It will however ding there credit. If we can get enough people using the legal system to fight back we WILL be able to impact there bottom line. IF you are in there state they have to answer to the local government. I'd get he judgment and request an order to produce the data stolen from your system. Once I got the judgment file a lien on any real property the company owns. You might even tag it on the executives personal property as well. (this might be protected by incorporation but I'd try anyway. Let them fight to get it removed) If enough people give this a go, they would not be able to support the legal ramifications of there actions. I get dinged by these guys every so often, I'll be giving this a go on the next round when I can document everything. DR

    12. Re:and it won't matter... by druxton · · Score: 1

      And all of those companies rely on uninfomred (read: stupid) people
      thier
      competator
      nusicence

       
      Calling someone stupid because they're uninformed is about as legitimate as calling someone stupid because they can't spell. The uninformed can become informed, just as someone can learn to spell, use a dictionary, or maybe take a bit more care typing. Neither implies stupidity, which really can't be helped.

    13. Re:and it won't matter... by pingveno · · Score: 1

      Something tells me that any large corporation that has a PC in their buildings (aka every large corporation) has a significant percentage of their IT budget go towards helping workers fix their computers. I wouldn't be surprised if quite a few prominant companies quietly became involved in this legal action. Just a guess.

      --
      "it's not about aptitude, it's the way you're viewed" - Galinda
  2. Only one? by catahoula10 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What about the rest of them.

    --
    This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
    Catahoula!
    1. Re:Only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, what about Google?

      (Prediction: in t 2 min modded Troll by Google-employed astroturfs)

    2. Re:Only one? by hotdiggitydawg · · Score: 2, Funny

      deliberately and repeatedly duped Internet users into downloading intrusive advertising software....(download PDF)

      Oh, the irony. Acrobat Reader must be the most resource-hungry bloatware I've ever come across, and it displays ads, and has been used as spyware...

    3. Re:Only one? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The number of fake spyware removers is almost irrelavent! What is relavent is the laws stance on their practices! If law enforcers (Fed's or whoever) ignore them, then these companies have no incentive to stop what they are doing!

      But, if one gets punished and punished hard then the others will think twice before going down the same road... I for one hope that 180solution and it's bosses (CEO's etc) get hammered to set an example for the rest of them!

    4. Re:Only one? by catahoula10 · · Score: 1

      irony indeed.

      The only time i use Acrobat is when it is a must to view the information i need. Basically because Acrobat needs patching against vulnerabilities just like windows does.

      --
      This has been another valuable and informative opinion from:
      Catahoula!
  3. And not always duped... by DaHat · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The one and only time I've ever had a PC of mine hijacked was because of 180solutions under IE7 and XPSP2 a few months back... I browsed to a site related to them and a moment later I had several new icons next to my clock and plenty of pop up ads saying hello.

    Never before and never since had I ever had this happen... and it did make me a believer that a system could be hijacked without the user doing anything more than navigating to an HTTP url.

    1. Re:And not always duped... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1, Troll

      Under IE7? The browser's not even out yet, and already there's exploits in the wild?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:And not always duped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I bet you still run as admin ? lol

    3. Re:And not always duped... by eikonos · · Score: 5, Funny

      That's Microsoft innovation in action! ;)

    4. Re:And not always duped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      it did make me a believer that a system could be hijacked without the user doing anything more than navigating to an HTTP url

      That depends heavily on what program you are using to browse to the respective HTTP url. Your problem was not that you are simply "browsing to a url", the specific problem is that you are "using IE to open a url". IE leaves itself wide open to attack for a variety of reasons, I've been browsing almost exclusively with Opera for the last few years (a little Firefox as well), and I haven't had any issues at all (read: not even one). I don't run a virus scanner, my biannual spyware inspections only turn up various cookies, and I haven't had an infection in years. I also browse some pretty disreputable sites with impunity, the difference between me and the average user is that I take specific precautions with my browsing habits (i.e., I don't use IE, on any computer, except to test sites).

    5. Re:And not always duped... by PastAustin · · Score: 1, Funny
      ...plenty of pop up ads saying hello.



      HOLY SHIT POPUP ADS ARE TALKING NOW?!

      Well at least they were polite and didn't say, "BOO!"
      --
      Firefox 2.0 - Spell Rightly.
    6. Re:And not always duped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      wow d00d you're fucking hilarious!

      oh, wait, no you're not

    7. Re:And not always duped... by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 0

      Who did spy sheriff?

      I got that once... It's a real bitch to remove... the 64bit machine took a week of hunting down files (MS Antispyware/Spybot/Adaware could detect it but couldn't remove it.. it's self repairing - if you miss a file it redownloads itself and reinfects), and it shafted the kernel of the 32bit machine somehow so it kept rebooting every 3-4 minutes... had to reinstall the OS.

      Cost me about a $1000 of billable time overall... I should send them the bill.

      Spyware authors should be taken out and shot (after they've paid the bill of course).

    8. Re:And not always duped... by spoco2 · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't run a virus scanner

      I'm sorry... but I will laugh if one day your pc is taken down by a virus... Why not run a free one like AVG? It'll make you feel all warm and cosy inside... if just for the fact that it comes up clean in its checks.

    9. Re:And not always duped... by legallyillegal · · Score: 2, Informative
      and i'll laugh the day your AVG fails 22% of the time ... which is today

      and I don't run a realtime scanner either.

      --
      ?giS
    10. Re:And not always duped... by PastAustin · · Score: 1

      Show your face slime!

      --
      Firefox 2.0 - Spell Rightly.
    11. Re:And not always duped... by springbox · · Score: 2, Informative
      The one and only time I've ever had a PC of mine hijacked was because of 180solutions under IE7 and XPSP2 a few months back... I browsed to a site related to them and a moment later I had several new icons next to my clock and plenty of pop up ads saying hello.

      The only reason this is a problem is because of the type of user that these companies are exploiting. You're running IE that doesn't appear to be locked down in any way on an account with administrator privileges. Basically any ActiveX app (most likely) not only has the flexibility to do basically whatever, but nothing is stopping it from tearing apart your system since it's also running with administrator privileges.

      Don't feel too bad though, back in the days of Windows 98 I had some InstallShield app pop up through Internet Explorer and install some intrusive application without any warning.

      Just because Microsoft gives your account admin access by default (WinXP) doesn't mean you can't do anything to protect yourself. You should take some time to lock down your system if you don't want another infection. No more admin level access to your every day account, etc. Unfourtnately, because your type of setup is so common unscrupulous companies will take advantage of it. (See also: SONY)

    12. Re:And not always duped... by AndroidCat · · Score: 1

      Well, if you want talking popups, try this. Of course, you need Windows, IE, permissions to run ActiveX, scripts, make sure you have enough MS Agent installed, have the Peedy character available... *phew*!

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    13. Re:And not always duped... by karmatic · · Score: 1

      Actually, I got a talking popup ad earlier today - it used flash.

    14. Re:And not always duped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh no. 22%. Much better than not having any protection and much better than the failure rate of Symantec's scanners.

    15. Re:And not always duped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      I prefer to hide my face slime.

    16. Re:And not always duped... by Killall+-9+Bash · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Its been a long time since i've used a virus scanner at home, and I'll tell you why:

      1. They can only find known virii. Maybe being 'protected' from tens of thousands of viruses comforts you, but I'm worried about the few no one knows about yet, and AV software provides no protection against those.
      2. They are only partially sucsessfull in removing virii. How many times have you seen "Delete Failed! click here for more info"? I've seen it a few times too many. I SHOULD NEVER EVER SEE THIS MESSAGE! This is a design failure.
      3. AV software is not effective as a means of prevention. Virii come in two flavors-- trojans and worms. Trojan==idiot user clicked on BrittneySpearsNaked.jpg.exe; AV cannot prevent this. Worm==windows security issue; AV cannot prevent this. This is an over-simplification, and may not be 100% technically accurate, but you get the picture.
      4. (sum of points 2 and 3) If AV software can't prevent infection, and if it sometimes can't even remove the infection, what good is it again? Its good for Symantec, its good for Macafee, and its good for IT professionals who get to say "its not my fault, I did everything i could to prevent it" next time a code red happens.

      --
      "Prediction: within 10 years, Windows will be a Linux distribution." Me, 7-6-2016
    17. Re:And not always duped... by Zakir · · Score: 1

      Didn't you see the service patch that came out for Vista a few days ago? Well, that was for IE7!

    18. Re:And not always duped... by Zarel · · Score: 2, Informative

      The recent WMF vulnerability affects every application that uses the Windows libraries for displaying images, which includes IE7. I'm guessing that's what caused it.

      --
      Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
    19. Re:And not always duped... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I thought I'd read in the stories about the WMF vulnerability that there weren't even any exploits in the wild? Did I hallucinate that, or was it just an incorrect statement?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    20. Re:And not always duped... by mikeisme77 · · Score: 0

      While I agree wholeheartedly that spyware authors should be eliminated in the most lethal of manners... Maybe next time you try removing spyware, you should unplug your computer from the net ;-). Can't repair itself if it can't redownload the files. I also recommend going into the computer in safe mode, so only the essential processes will be running. But if you REALLY want to fix your computer, just remove Windows and install Linux or BSD--or go buy yourself a Mac.

    21. Re:And not always duped... by Zarel · · Score: 1

      I believe I read in the stories about the WMF vulnerability that there were, in fact, many exploits in the wild.

      In fact, looking back now, the first Slashdot story I could find about the WMF vulnerability was "Exploit Released for Unpatched Windows Flaw".

      --
      Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
    22. Re:And not always duped... by HTL2001 · · Score: 1

      "Trojan==idiot user clicked on BrittneySpearsNaked.jpg.exe; AV cannot prevent this." Real-time scanning can catch this before the file is even opening, and can even catch it before the download is even finished in $p2pProgram

      --
      By reading this, you have given me brief control of your mind.
    23. Re:And not always duped... by TrancePhreak · · Score: 1
      This is an over-simplification, and may not be 100% technically accurate
      I'd say this applies to your entire post, as it's pretty much all wrong.
      1. Most pay for virii scanners (McAffe, Norton) have a technique to detect unknown virri. It's called Bloodhound in Norton.
      2. I know Norton can get this message, but it can also try to delete the file at startup. Or you can go into safe mode and it will delete it.
      3. Norton is quite effective with this problem (trojans). When you try to run the program, Norton will tell you it's infected and give you a choice of what to do.
      4. Since you base your #4 on 2 and 3, you are pretty much wrong here too.
      --

      -]Phreak Out[-
    24. Re:And not always duped... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      ". They can only find known virii. Maybe being 'protected' from tens of thousands of viruses comforts you, but I'm worried about the few no one knows about yet, and AV software provides no protection against those. "

          Actually Anti-Virus programs have had an ever increasing ability to dectect unknown viruses for over a decade.
          I remember an antivirus program from BEFORE win95 came out that did some simple checks for programs behaving like a virus.
          Also your definitions are a bit confused. Viruses don't have to be worms or trojans, and not all worms or trojans are viruses.
          As far as efficacy goes, yeah that varies a bit and is never perfect, but 95% safe is better than .5%.

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    25. Re:And not always duped... by Mycroft_VIII · · Score: 1

      I see a lot of 'don't run windows xp as admin', but has anyone tried to anything usefull with such a setup?
          I'm shure it's possible to some extent, but Everytime I re-install I swear I'm not going to use the admin acount or permisions for day to day use and everytime I wind getting tired of every damn idiot app or game or whatever refusing to install or run elsewise.
          The problem is so many software vendors (especially the snake oil vendors selling 'copy protection') just assume the machine runs admin and code as if THEY own the machine, not the actual owner.
          And XP itself compounds the problems with thier brain damaged design and UI in this area (or at least in my opinion).

      Mycroft

      --
      https://signup.leagueoflegends.com/?ref=4c3ed6600b6ea
    26. Re:And not always duped... by digital+bath · · Score: 1

      I just realized that 180Solutions' office is just down the street from my house. I mapped it on google, at it's a three minute drive. I think I'll go buy some eggs...

      --
      find / -name "*.sig" | xargs rm
    27. Re:And not always duped... by springbox · · Score: 1

      It's possible to do it, and it's easier for me because almost all of my apps are open source projects and they work well with plain users. It takes a bit of work for others, but depends on what you're running really. For a lot of apps you might need to set some crazy permissions but you can eventually get most things working, or try using runas as a last resort.

    28. Re:And not always duped... by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      Funny, I've been running as a non-privledged user for about 2 months now and I haven't had any trouble at all.

      For the WMF exploit, though, it doesn't matter because the code is granted system privledges.

    29. Re:And not always duped... by spectre_240sx · · Score: 1

      Personally I got a kick out of that one.

    30. Re:And not always duped... by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1

      Browse to mscracks.com (not linked) - in Firefox, /not/ IE. Choose a crack to download, any crack. Watch popup window appear. Watch Firefox prompt you to download a .wmf file. Et voila!

    31. Re:And not always duped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll help you pay your student loan and you help me pay my mortgage.

    32. Re:And not always duped... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      'd say this applies to your entire post, as it's pretty much all wrong.

      I don't bother with virus scanners - they-re far more trouble than they're worth. Instead, I run behind a NAT router, use Firefox, and avoid questionable content, like elf bowling. I haven't had any issues in rather a long time (hardware related), and I have no intention of changing.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    33. Re:And not always duped... by sremick · · Score: 1

      Since you don't run a virus scanner, and most viruses are designed to remain hidden and unknown to the user... how can you legitimately say you "haven't had any issues"?

      Sure, you qualify that with "hardware related", but that immediately nullifies your whole argument, since last I knew the virus problem was software-related, and not hardware.

    34. Re:And not always duped... by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's possible but extremely frustrating. All of my users run the majority of their software off our central Citrix servers. They run as unprivlidged users. Whenever we get a new app from some clueless software company we have to educate them in basic security practices and let them know that "Just run it as an administrator" isn't an acceptable solution. Hell I had to pull teeth and call back 3 times and ask for a supervisor before Intuit would even TRY to give me a list of the registry keys that a non-power user would need to run Quickbooks ENTERPRISE 6.0! They finally gave them to me, which I later found out was compiled by a USER of the product and posted to an unofficial support board! The whole culture of Windows software development just sucks. The funny thing to me is NT actually has one of the BEST security mechanisms (policy based fine-grained ACL's) of about any common OS yet it basically goes unused because of lack of care on the part of all the lazy developers.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    35. Re:And not always duped... by sremick · · Score: 2, Informative

      1) So what? Most people get infected by a very small subset of the huge number of known viruses antivirus software protects you against. It is an elite few who are so exposed that they are bound to get hit first by a new virus in the wild, so new the antivirus vendors haven't added a signature to their databases yet. Sure it happens once in a while, but SO WHAT? Meanwhile there are all these KNOWN ones out there EVERYWHERE that AV software CAN protect you against. It's like saying you won't take vaccines, since the flu vaccine won't protect you against HIV. Why not be protected against the flu anyway? Basically you're saying, "It only can help me 99% of the time, so since that's not 100% I don't even want that 99% of protection so I'll go without."

      2) I don't care if they are only "partially-successful" in salvaging the infected file. Especially since most are irreversibly-damaging anyhow and so there's nothing TO salvage. To me, the REAL success is getting the virus off my computer. If I lose a document or other datafile in the process, it's not the end of the world. At least the virus has been DETECTED, and REMOVED, and is no longer infecting files on my machine and others. How on earth is that a good reason to not run it anyway? Once again, you're denying yourself all the benefits that AV software DOES have since it's not perfect 100% of the time.

      3) First of all, virus != trojan. Secondly, most AV sofware DO detect the common trojans out there in the wild that you're likely to come across. And their on-demand scanning DOES catch those files in exactly the situation you describe. You're just plain wrong on this point. 0% technically accurate.

      4) AV software is good for the same reason we use seatbelts, surge-suppressors, and bullet-proof vests. They add a level of protection that covers a significant scope of what one is bound to experience that it's worth it. A seatbelt won't save you if a semi crashed down on top of you, but usually people just get into rear-enders. A surge-suppressor won't protect you if lightning hits the line 10' from your computer, but usually that's not the case and what you experience are normal surges well within its range of protection. A bullet-proof vest won't protect you against a RPG shot at your head, but they have saved many people from gunshots aimed at the torso which is the majority of what cops come up against, and you'd be hard-pressed to argue with a cop that he shouldn't bother wearing his/hers.

      And finally... "virii" is not a word, and horribly incorrect under all rules of Latin as a plural of "virus".

    36. Re:And not always duped... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 0

      Since you don't run a virus scanner, and most viruses are designed to remain hidden and unknown to the user... how can you legitimately say you "haven't had any issues"?

      I haven't had any odd slowdowns, reboots, or other symptoms common to the more popular worms. I also have never had my rpc daemon crash. The only problems I've had were periodic kernel panics common to faulty memory, which haven't changed in frequency.

      Sure, you qualify that with "hardware related", but that immediately nullifies your whole argument, since last I knew the virus problem was software-related, and not hardware.

      Not at all. Hardware problems are a separate issue.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    37. Re:And not always duped... by sremick · · Score: 1

      So the person who doesn't have obvious symptoms (AIDS) therefore must not be infected with HIV?

      You still don't offer anything that really suggests you aren't infected. Until you actually RUN a scan (virus and spyware/adware/malware) and come up clean, there is nothing suggesting you are clean. Considering that 80-90% of all PCs are infected somehow and most people are totally unaware of the fact, the odds are against you.

      I'm perfectly willing to accept the chance you MIGHT be clean, and should your scans prove it so I will commend your efforts. But until then, you simply sound like any number of other countless millions who are just in-denial. Closing one's eyes doesn't make the problem go away.

    38. Re:And not always duped... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 0

      So the person who doesn't have obvious symptoms (AIDS) therefore must not be infected with HIV?

      There's a good chance. I use a condom and don't screw every skank I meet in a bar.

      You still don't offer anything that really suggests you aren't infected. Until you actually RUN a scan (virus and spyware/adware/malware) and come up clean, there is nothing suggesting you are clean. Considering that 80-90% of all PCs are infected somehow and most people are totally unaware of the fact, the odds are against you.

      No, I'm a software engineer with admin experience. Given my behavior profile, my chances are very good. Just because most people don't know how to build and run a computer doesn't mean that I don't.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    39. Re:And not always duped... by legallyillegal · · Score: 0
      rtfa.

      10. Norton Professional version 2006 - 85.17%
      15. AVG version 7.1.371 - 77.97%

      common sense anyone?

      --
      ?giS
    40. Re:And not always duped... by TallMatthew · · Score: 2, Funny
      BrittneySpearsNaked.jpg.exe

      Do you know where I can download that? Rad!

    41. Re:And not always duped... by Nazadus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Ok, this isn't mean tto the buy above this comment, it's meant for the guy dealing in absolutes who isn't catching a clue. I went years without AV and was clean. How do I know? I bought TrendMicro (much is _much_ better than Norton and McAffe -- I know this becuase I've replaced those with TM on other machines and those machines run much better; TM is lean) and it said I was clean. I probably won't buy AV again. Unless I get a new job where I use my laptop for anything other than home stuff and working at work... (becuase I like having Natural Selection and HL2 :)) Now, back to your point: You can't prove to me that you are 100% clean either much like you can't goto the docter and have him write out something saying you are 100% ok without spending an insane amount of money doing lots of test; Unless of course, you can get Microsoft to verify everything you can via checksum *and* your 3rd party software from the makers themselves. If you want to be insane about this, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Bloodhound is _not_ 100% effective. I run Windows at work for my firewall (ISA Server) and it hasn't ever been hacked. No, I can't prove this, no I don't go dig through _every_ file on _every_ computer to prove this, but those with other firewalls don't do the same either. I have OpenBSD at home as a firewall... So the person who doesn't have obvious symptoms (AIDS) therefore must not be infected with HIV? And what, on Earth, will prevent this? A condom won't stop 100%. What if that condom breaks? What if...? What if...? Closing one's eyes doesn't make the problem go away. Back at ya. *kisses* Stop speaking bullshit and start talking practical; Only sith deal in absolutes. Thank you.

      --
      "Do or do not. There is no try." -- Master Yoda (Half man, half muppet)
    42. Re:And not always duped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fulcrum of infection, you are so retarded. Words cannot express how much. People like you are usually infected and used silently as spam relay or worse. If you do not "feel" anything, does not mean that there could not be a silent daemon doing something nefarious on your system and using just a small amount of system resources to not attact attention. Did you at least do a process list and see what is running ?

      Retarded. Very much so.

    43. Re:And not always duped... by Bender0x7D1 · · Score: 1

      Do you have any idea how many old viruses are still circulating?

      I use the network at a major university and I get notified of newtear attacks at least once an hour. newtear targeted Windows 95 and NT. It has been around a LONG time, and still trying to infect new machines.

      Take some time and Google for some of the big worms like Slammer and Code Red, and you will find people are still detecting them - thousands of times a day.

      Regarding point 3, I have my AV set to scan every file I open, so clicking on a BrittenySpearsNaked.jpg.exe will cause it to be scanned and prevent the infection. You might want to look for this setting on your AV. (Scan on open or some such.)

      Finally, AV is not the end-all, be-all of security; you should also have a firewall to prevent unwanted incoming and outgoing communications. AV is part of an overall security plan.

      Bad behavior/design on the part of your anti-virus software doesn't mean you should throw up your hands and give up.

      --
      Reading code is like reading the dictionary - you have to read half of it before you can go back and understand it.
    44. Re:And not always duped... by Jtheletter · · Score: 1
      Ok, usually I stay out of the viruses vs virii arguments but no one called you on it and you abused the hell out of it in your post. Case in point check out this line:

      They can only find known virii. Maybe being 'protected' from tens of thousands of viruses comforts you

      You used both spellings within 10 words of each other, that's what prompted me to action. Sorry. Look, virii is NOT A WORD. the correct plural is VIRUSES, please take note for the future. Thanks! :)

      --
      -- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
    45. Re:And not always duped... by hesiod · · Score: 1

      > I think I'll go buy some eggs...

      To eat and build up your energy before you have to run away from their burning office building?

    46. Re:And not always duped... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Hey now, -1 Troll is uncalled for - I do just that, and it works.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    47. Re:And not always duped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't get me wrong--I don't really feel that I need one for my daily use, either, but I'm also not running XP with all those crappy services and I'm not dumb enough to download the crap that usually causes problems.

      That said, AV software IS still useful, even if it doesn't work. Here at work, I had one machine continually report that it was deleting some virus. Obviously, this set off some alarm bells with me: how was it constantly being reinfected? My investigation turned up several additional pieces of the virus and some changed network settings. I fixed all of those, and the computer is back to normal.

      Point is: I wouldn't have known that their computer *had* a virus without the AV software, and I would not have known to go fix it. Thus, the AV software was useful, even if it did not perform its function very well on that virus.

      The AV software had the absolute latest definitions, too.

    48. Re:And not always duped... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remove viruses for a living. That's all I do. 4+ a day for the last 4 years.

      I had a dollar for every time an AV scanner said "clean failed, click here for instructions" I could buy a second house.

      If there are instructions for removal, then why on earth couldn't the AV scanner simply PERFORM THE DAMNED INSTRUCTIONS?

  4. Stupid adware. by BigZaphod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That stuff is evil. I think we should just submit them to a public stoning or something like that. Not only would it be more fun - they might actually consider not doing it again!

    1. Re:Stupid adware. by StupidHelpDeskGuy · · Score: 2, Funny

      Public stoning? Why would we want to smoke them up?

    2. Re:Stupid adware. by Anonymous+Rockstar · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yes, people tend to stop doing stuff after being stoned.

      --

    3. Re:Stupid adware. by redheaded_stepchild · · Score: 4, Funny

      Perhaps I'm the only one who sees this on a regular basis:
      When I uninstall 180Solutions based stuff from a clients computer, I get a little questionairre that I am required to fill out. Questions are usually closely related to "Why did you remove this software?", "What services would have made you keep this software?" and "What could we do in the future to better serve you?" The first two are followed by drop-down choices (none of which are even close to my desired answers) and the last is a text field. Now, I don't know about you guys, but if they had honored my request for a Remote-controlled Sniper Rifle auto-aimed at their CEO's head, I might have considered keeping the software. Oh well.

      --
      Don't use the Troll mod just because you disagree with me.
    4. Re:Stupid adware. by qualico · · Score: 1

      rofl.

      yep, I would have opted in.

    5. Re:Stupid adware. by syzler · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think we should just submit them to a public stoning... they might actually consider not doing it again!

      Death tends to make people lethargic and unmotivated, as a result most do not repeat transgressions once they are dead.

    6. Re:Stupid adware. by holywarrior21c · · Score: 2, Funny

      it should be... public stoning, ironing, free torturing, raping, slicing, cuting, sawing, steaming, painting, drowning... YESSS!! i feel much better! - George W. Dr.Evil Bush -

    7. Re:Stupid adware. by emmaussmith · · Score: 1

      Other types of "stoning" makes people lethargic and unmotivated as well.

    8. Re:Stupid adware. by thrillseeker · · Score: 2, Funny
      When I uninstall 180Solutions based stuff from a clients computer, I get a little questionairre that I am required to fill out.

      When people bring me an infected computer, I simply answer yes to the short-form questionairre: FORMAT C: (Y/N)?

    9. Re:Stupid adware. by RPMentley · · Score: 1

      Stoning = throw rocks at them.
      I say they should have to run their own software.
      Especially SpyAxe.

      --
      Documentation: Instructions translated from Swedish by Japanese for English speaking persons.
    10. Re:Stupid adware. by DocSavage64109 · · Score: 1

      FORMAT C:

      That would be nice but I always seem to get old win98 computers with devices that require impossible to find drivers and no serial number for the os on the side of the computer. :(

    11. Re:Stupid adware. by redheaded_stepchild · · Score: 1

      ...and thus my pain is shared...

      There have been several times where I WISH I could just unilaterally wipe a customer's drive. I once had a client with (and I'm not kidding) 65,000 instances of the LoveLetter virus. That's every other file on her system. She had had the virus for 6 months, and just thought her computer was 'wearing out'. Of course, I could not wipe her drive because she needed her pictures off it first. Had fun explaining that one to her.

      --
      Don't use the Troll mod just because you disagree with me.
    12. Re:Stupid adware. by Grench · · Score: 0

      I get this same "Why did you remove this software?" prompt when I get rid of it at work.

      Having explained exactly what their software does, and what spyware and adware is all about, I generally ask the customer to put something fitting into it. It's quite interesting what they write. Some of it is genuinely unprintable (would make a sailor blush).

      --
      He's Jesus, for Christ's sake.
    13. Re:Stupid adware. by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 1
      That stuff is evil. I think we should just submit them to a public stoning or something like that. Not only would it be more fun - they might actually consider not doing it again!

      True, but the real question is: Do we allow women to go to stonings?

  5. They had it coming by mikeswi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    For the last two years, 180Solutions has been issuing press releases claiming that they are going to clean up their affiliates. Then an affiliate is caught installing trojans and sneaking onto computers without consent. Then 180Solutions issues a press release .....

    And round and round we go.

    If they spent 1/10 as much time actually controlling their affiliates as they do writing up press releases, maybe something might have been done.

    1. Re:They had it coming by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      More like "if they spent 1/10 as much time looking for real jobs as as they do writing up press releases, maybe something might have been done." These are just another group of sociopaths out to profit off the Internet by any means possible. Not much you can do about people that don't even accept that they're doing anything wrong.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    2. Re:They had it coming by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      "It wasn't me, it was my eevil affiliate!"

      Sure, like the soap operas haven't already overused that one.

      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
    3. Re:They had it coming by Skadet · · Score: 1

      I'm late to the punch, but....
       
        The point is that they don't *want* to stop the affiliates. They issue press releases to keep up the facade that they're doing something about it.

    4. Re:They had it coming by RPMentley · · Score: 1

      Yep.
      It's like SpyAxe. They claim that Spyware makers are advertising their products in spyware without their consent.

      Suuuuuuuuure they are. Give me one good reason they would do that.

      --
      Documentation: Instructions translated from Swedish by Japanese for English speaking persons.
  6. pdf? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    good editing ScuttleMonkey, here is the missing link for PDF

  7. Advergaming The New Adware? by biocute · · Score: 3, Interesting

    What about Advergaming?

    If you buy a software, install in your computer and it's showing you ads when you're using the software, it may even retrieve new ads from a remote location, are we supposed to put up with that?

    1. Re:Advergaming The New Adware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Marketing, like anything else, should be innovative. Unfortunately, many advertising agencies equate "forcing our advertisements onto users" with innovation. Advertising agencies don't care about public goodwill because for the most part it doesn't impact their business model - it can only impact the client's business model. There's a connection, but it is slow, indirect, and probably difficult for the client to see directly. Rather than seeing net results, advertisement agencies see things in terms of exposure.

      Unobstrusive advertisements in a video game is actually a clever idea - an extension of unobtrusive product placements in movies. The problem is that people's tolerances change and after awhile, advertising methods stop being effective. Rather than coming up with the next innovative idea, advertisers change their tactics. Since people are ignoring the advertisements, the advertisements become more intrusive.

    2. Re:Advergaming The New Adware? by TheGSRGuy · · Score: 1
      IIRC this was first seen in Need For Speed Underground. There were Cingular banners, Burger Kings, Old Spice billboards, etc.
       

      Frankly, that doesn't bother me since it isn't in my face and doesn't hose the computer.

    3. Re:Advergaming The New Adware? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would put up with in game ads if software prices were reduced.

    4. Re:Advergaming The New Adware? by patio11 · · Score: 1

      Put up with it or find a different game. If the adds persist when you're not using the software, or its impossible to get rid of the software, then I'd agree you have a legitimate gripe.

  8. Throw them in jail... by Number_5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    and massively fine anyone who advtises with them. My mom has called me in tears because she could not use her computer due to popups etc. The only way to end this problem is to fine the advertisers.

    1. Re:Throw them in jail... by adyus · · Score: 3, Funny


      ...won't somebody PLEASE think of the mothers?

      ;)

    2. Re:Throw them in jail... by ChrisGilliard · · Score: 1, Insightful

      It's easy to say this, but how do we judge what's illegal and what's not? For instance if you install certain file-sharing software, you get adware. I think that the developer has the right to do this as long as they disclose what they're doing. I'd like to see labeling on this instead of making it illegal. Make a clear label saying this software what some might consider intrusive advertising included. I can't see anyone installing with that kind of label. Then, if they don't put the label, I wholehartedly agree with fines, etc.

      --
      No Sigs!
    3. Re:Throw them in jail... by robyannetta · · Score: 1

      What? You haven't installed Linux on your mother's PC yet you insensitive clod?!

      --
      - Just my $0.02, take with a grain of salt, your mileage may vary.
    4. Re:Throw them in jail... by TKBui · · Score: 1

      I don't think jail is a place for these people. I do agree that being placed in jail is punishment, but I do not want to pay for another inmate. The better solution is to fine the parties responsible (the actual people, not the corporations), make the fines non-dischargeable via bankruptcy, and a hefty community service hours levy upon said persons. Chanting put them in jail is the wrong thing. Jail/Prison is for rapists, and those guilty of cold blooded murder (pre-meditated).

    5. Re:Throw them in jail... by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      Jail/Prison is for rapists...

      So? Putting adware vendors in prision just gives the rapists somebody to practice on. Seems reasonable to me!

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    6. Re:Throw them in jail... by toadlife · · Score: 2, Funny

      Some would say installing Linux on your mothers PC would make you an insensitive clod.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    7. Re:Throw them in jail... by Firehed · · Score: 1
      *ahem* You mean kill the advertisers, right? They know damn well how much trouble and pain their ads put people through. Their morals are more or less a notch below that of a child molester. Jails are crowded enough, and as much as I'd love for these guys to have to bend over and take it, I think we need to do something that'll actually be effective.

      A bit harsh, perhaps, but I think it would put an end to popups in a hurry. At least as long as they have similar laws overseas.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    8. Re:Throw them in jail... by RPMentley · · Score: 1

      IANAL, but I think that currently, it's only illegal if they try to hide it, such as by not putting it in the EULA. Of course, since almost noone really reads the EULA, they can get away with a lot.

      --
      Documentation: Instructions translated from Swedish by Japanese for English speaking persons.
    9. Re:Throw them in jail... by hazah · · Score: 1
      Actually, it works pretty well. That is, if you know what you're doing. And, in her own words, it's "just the same" (as far as she's concerned).

      Also, since installing Ubuntu on my laptop, I am convinced that those who'd say what you say they'd say, are full of s**t.

      Interestingly, I would think that Windows would make a user more insensitive. What, with all them popups, etc... it's just mindnumbing.

      To Mods: If sounds like troll, sorry, not intentional. I am only replying to a single aspect of a basically pointless argument. The important thing here is choice, not platform.

    10. Re:Throw them in jail... by toadlife · · Score: 1

      I was just joking. I installed FreeBSD6 on my moms computer after fixing it for her, and set it up with KDM+autologon and firefox/thunderbird. I'm waiting to see how they react when they fire it up. I guess I'm an insenstitive clod.

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
    11. Re:Throw them in jail... by toadlife · · Score: 1

      A follow-up to this....

      Well, my mom called. She ask me to come over when I have some free time and put Windows back on the computer.

      Oh well. :)

      --
      I don't always use unix-like operating systems; but when I do, I prefer FreeBSD.
  9. Hehe, cjb.net by Jugalator · · Score: 1

    Anyone remember those back in the happy early days of circa HTML 3 Internet? :-)

    I recall them once being a rather clean host, and among the first more well-known ones offering free subdomains.

    --
    Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    1. Re:Hehe, cjb.net by MrP-(at+work) · · Score: 1

      yeah wow, i had a cjb.net subdomain back in 1997 or 98 (defsoft.cjb.net), now they're a spyware company?? their site looks like they still provide the same dns/redirect services, i dont see any spyware hmm

      --
      [an error occurred while processing this directive]
    2. Re:Hehe, cjb.net by owlstead · · Score: 1

      Yes. With all the frame issues and stuff, they were pretty bad as well. Not many adds, I concur, but not much commercial sites to browse either.

    3. Re:Hehe, cjb.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I actually still use my cjb mail address. I've had it for the longest time and find it very useful to use it as a meta-address: by default [anything]@yourdomain.cjb.net goes to the same mailbox, so you use unique random e-mails on forms and whatnot, and if you start getting spam at one of them, you know which website sold your addy out AND you can just forward that one addy to a separate junkmail account or invalid address. I get no more than 2 spam mails a month.

      Unfortunately, if this is how the company behaves I feel inclined to switch providers. It'll be a huge hassle though... I don't ever use my cjb web redirect and I rarely visit the main cjb site (and then, just with Linux) so I had no idea they were like this. :(

    4. Re:Hehe, cjb.net by sloths · · Score: 1

      Yeah I used to have a couple too. I made a page for my friend's baby pictures, and later one of the people she sent it to complained of spyware infecting her computer. Other than that it was a pretty nice service. I guess that explains it.

      --
      really 867993
      Karma schkarma
    5. Re:Hehe, cjb.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Erm, not providers. POP3 hosts. You know what I mean.

    6. Re:Hehe, cjb.net by Jugalator · · Score: 1

      Yes. With all the frame issues and stuff, they were pretty bad as well.

      I recall that was just if you used "URL cloaking". That el cheapo feature to make it look like you really owned the domain and didn't just use a redirect. I don't really like to use that feature on services that has it and would rather have visitors get an "ugly" URL. It's simply why -- the site becomes hell to bookmark as browsers usually just (by default) use the frameset document. You'd have to navigate submenus and stuff to get the actual contained page you were at...

      --
      Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
    7. Re:Hehe, cjb.net by izomiac · · Score: 1

      I've been using them for a long time to redirect my e-mail. Anything @mysubdomain.cjb.net goes to me, so I can give everyone a different e-mail address and block any that spam me. Hopefully I won't have to change that now...

    8. Re:Hehe, cjb.net by The+Amazing+Fish+Boy · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't worry about it. I hear email clients are invulnerable to viruses & malware.

    9. Re:Hehe, cjb.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I too use a cjb.net mail address for forms, registrations, etc. It's great because all of my spam goes to one place. It's wonderful opening my other 4 inboxes and finding nearly zero spam (the spam I do get is only from the free email account providers like msn or yahoo).

            As for my main/real address - only real-life friends, family and prospective employers know it, so I never get ANY spam at that address. It is disturbing to see that cjb.net is involved with this kind of stuff but unfortunately I don't see how one might escape a tenuous tie to tenuously malware related companies if you use a free service. As for MSN, Yahoo, etc. - I won't even get into it, they have their own unethical practices as well.

            Google is a relatively good company that does relatively little harm (not yet, anyway) - but even they have done some things I disagree with. I wish there were a perfect company out there but apparently it doesn't exist. Google has been the closest to it - and if they stay the way they are now, they will provide a model for how to do (big) business without being (too) evil and still make money (so long as you have a high-quality product/service/business model). Their attitude/motto not only lends itself to success monetarily, but to success pr/viral-marketing-wise which in turns helps to drive even more monetary gains. IMO, that is why they have gotten so far so quickly.

    10. Re:Hehe, cjb.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Posting anonymously to avoid implicating the innocent.

      CJB.net is run by one Chris Butdorf of Wooster, Ohio. I know this because I knew the guy a long time ago.

      This sort of behaviour from him is nothing new. In fact, it goes back to the days of his Spitfire-based BBS.

      One particularly nasty prank that he and a friend of his played was spoofing an email (which in 1996 was easy to do and difficult for non-UNIX savvy types to understand) as though it came from another BBS operator in town. This email went to the Whitehouse, threatening the life of the president. Let me just say that when two Secret Service agents and the Wooster Chief of Police dragged this guy out his band class, and his father out of work, "CJB" thought it was funny. The guy's life was nearly ruined. (Side note - the guy was so disenchanted by the experience that he gave up the tech career path altogether.)

      The fact that he's now adware scum is no surprise to me, and likely not to anyone else who knew him at the time.

    11. Re:Hehe, cjb.net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Also posting anonymous...

      Just wanted to confirm this story. I went to school with Butdorf, and with the kid that he got into trouble. I know of another incident where Butdorf was suspected of bringing porn into the school and loading it on some school systems and blaming it on another student. The student got yanked out of English class and had all of his posessions searched.

      He was a sad and immature little turd in high school, and it doesn't look like much has changed.

  10. 180 will always be right on the edge by putko · · Score: 5, Insightful

    180Solutions is always right on the line. They used to play really dirty, until it was illegal.

    Then they did the arms-length thing: blame the affiliates, but encourage them to break the law.

    I don't see how their behavior is any different from companies that mislead people as to what they are buying or signing (e.g. I'll give you a check for a dollar -- but it is also a contract that switches your long distance service to may carrier).

    Some people are stupid. Our laws assume that people are responsible and that if they sign a contract, that is them willingly singing a contract.

    I suspect the problem is that some people are so stupid that they aren't really responsible, and that is especially the case when it comes to computers running spyware.

    --
    http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    1. Re:180 will always be right on the edge by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Some people are stupid. Our laws assume that people are responsible and that if they sign a contract, that is them willingly singing a contract.

      Not true. You can't sign away your rights. You can't for example sign yourself into slavery. Unfortunately.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:180 will always be right on the edge by putko · · Score: 1

      In that case, it is the contract that is illegal.

      But you could have all the other elements -- consideration, for instance, and mutual benefit.

      Whether or not someone will willingly agreeing to something is a different issue from whether or not the contract is of a legal or illegal nature.

      Slavery is a good example -- at one point, someone could have sold themselves into slavery. And then suddenly that contract might be determined to be illegal, if slavery was banned.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    3. Re:180 will always be right on the edge by nixdix · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The problem is that most people have been worn down by 200+ line "End User Licensing Agreements (EULAs). Most of it is legalese gibberish and often a substantial part of it is in a language the end user does not understand.

      Microsoft is largely responsible for beating the public down in the computer arena until they just click OK or I Agree and be done with it. Microsoft is also responsible for establishing legal precedent that assenting to such an agreement is legal and binding regardless of whether you read it or are capable of understanding it.

      But Microsoft is hardly the first entity to beat the public down until they sign a document without reading it. If you've ever used a parking garage, you have tacitly agreed to the contract written in microfiche on the reverse side of the ticket you are given as you enter the garage - this contract has also been tested in court and is legal and binding.

    4. Re:180 will always be right on the edge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont see how you condone or defend this kind of behavior of 180Sloutions. They deliberatly trick and mislead people that their product is safe and now "spyware free", but then they hijack you're system as soon as possible. I have half a mind to hijack you're P.C. just to prove a point...

    5. Re:180 will always be right on the edge by putko · · Score: 1

      Who said I think it is OK?

      Also, I run OpenBSD. Good luck hijacking my PC.

      --
      http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_s tone_your_children/dt21_18a.html
    6. Re:180 will always be right on the edge by PoopMonkey · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not true. You can't sign away your rights. You can't for example sign yourself into slavery. Unfortunately.

      Unless of course you join the army.

    7. Re:180 will always be right on the edge by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      Even that's not really slavery. If you join the army and then refuse to do anything they won't whip you until you perform. They'll just give you a dishonorable discharge and kick you out. If you tried that shit in the middle east or something you'd probably get a different response... They'd jail you, and kick you out when it was convenient.

      Now, with that said, they HAVE been pulling dirty tricks to keep soldiers enlisted long past when they were supposed to get out, because it's the only way to support the illegal war...

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  11. No more spyware! by BHennessy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This will stop spyware dead in its tracks, just like how when the "spam king" got sued all spam ended. ...

    1. Re:No more spyware! by Bryansix · · Score: 1

      The "Spam King" is dead. Are you trying to imply something?

    2. Re:No more spyware! by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

      The "Spam King" is dead? Well its nice to know that Spam Assassin has finally started to work out as advertised!

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
    3. Re:No more spyware! by jZnat · · Score: 1

      If Spam Assassin was made by the Russian Mafia or something, that'd make sense...

      --
      'Yes, firefox is indeed greater than women. Can women block pops up for you? No. Can Firefox show you naked women? Yes.'
    4. Re:No more spyware! by the+real+darkskye · · Score: 1

      No, then it would be a shite meme not worth the effort to read

      --
      Music is everybody's possession.
      It's only publishers who think that people own it.
      Fuck Beta
      ~John Lenno
  12. WOW by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    they should teach 180solutions that No means "I dont want any 180solutions crap on my hdd" and that yes means "i dont know how much evil this adware can do to my computer" or just "suicide".

    aw. and that insisting isnt nice. i cliked once that i dont want anything already GODDAMMIT.

  13. A dose of their own medicine.. by nixkuroi · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think the feds should be granted warrants to enter the 180's employee's homes and build furniture in them. This furniture would be covered with fleas, ticks and head lice and be generally annoying to the person who lived there and there family. They would also be painted in ugly colors and make noises anytime someone entered the home or used another piece of furniture. Additionally, the furniture and appliances would be built in such a way that it would be difficult or impossible to remove from the homes without causing damage.

    Maybe we could send them some Sony DRM cd's too.

    1. Re:A dose of their own medicine.. by jcgf · · Score: 3, Funny
      I think the feds should be granted warrants to enter the 180's employee's homes and build furniture in them.

      That would kick ass. You could say things like "How do you like your new dining room table in the bathroom bitch?" or "ha ha a poorly designed cupboard in the living room, how do you like them apples mother fucker?".

    2. Re:A dose of their own medicine.. by Viceice · · Score: 1

      If only you could be modded +6

      --
      Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
  14. 180 does a 180 by digitaldc · · Score: 1

    "The company (180Solutions) continued these practices even after it pledged to better itself and after receiving warnings from spyware experts and privacy advocates, the group said."

    But, in typical relapse fashion, 180Solutions lived up to its name and did a full 180 on its pledge to better itself.
    It says it now may check in to an undisclosed rehab center on the coast to help with its spyware addiction.

    --
    He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
  15. Ugh... even the ACLU has gone evil... by PornMaster · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I got an invite to the ACLU, who's currently running this campaign is apparently buying mailing lists from the public radio station I support. Compiling lists of data from non-customers/members for abuse while blaming other people for the problem isn't exclusive to the spyware industry.

  16. Your spyware stories? Here's mine by spoco2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Ok... I don't really get spyware on my pcs... neither my wife or I go to porn sites (ok... in my youth I did... :/ ), I've made firefox the default browser on all my pcs, we have AVG free virus protection, Sygate Personal firewall... although, bugger... I just noticed they've discontinued that... will have to switch to ZoneAlarm now I suppose... humph. And we run Ad-Aware
      and SpyBot Search and Destroy every now and again...

    But just recently I've had to clean my father-in-law's pc, and a friends one too.

    Now the father-in-law's one was pretty bad, popups would launch with IE, and there was a lot of CPU activity etc. that was not accounted for... nasty stuff... but a clean with Adaware, Spybot, using Add/Remove to kill anything that looked suspect, putting firefox on etc. and we have a clean computer.

    The other computer though... my GOD! On startup it would immediately go to 100% CPU usage... and once you could finally get Task Manager up it was iexplore.exe that was doing the damage... a few minutes later when it'd actually respond to a kill process and the work of cleaning it could finally take place... well... hours later and using all tools I think it's clean now... but it required all of them to get it all... with HiJack This being the final saviour to remove the last of the damage...

    And what were the biggest damage makers? The damn programs that these people downloaded that claimed they were 'Spyware cleaners'... but really were spyware themselves.

    EVIL

    FUCKERS

    they prey on people who already have pcs loaded up with spyware... and put more on.

    Of course the second of the two pcs was infected so damn badly (Spybot found over 3 thousand items) due to porn surfing... almost always the cause of these things.

    I don't know how the makers of these programs live with themselves... there's nothing redeeming about what they do... AT ALL.

    1. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      Here's another one you need: Spyware Blaster. It's so good that if Spybot Search and Distroy detects it, it tells you that some of Spyware Blaster's protections are better than its own.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    2. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      Looks good, shall have to try that one! :)

    3. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by springbox · · Score: 1

      Nice. I noticed that Symantec acquired Sygate and are (surprise!) not giving away their excellent firewall anymore. Sygate Personal Firewall is IMO the best free Windows firewall available. Don't use Zone Alarm. It's extremely icky. Download SPF from here. It should last you for a while.

    4. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I completely understand what you went through. The win machine I am now now, I installed a fresh copy of XPSp2 Pro. The machine was ethernet connected to a Mac and the Mac and the PC were both behind a router firewall.

      10 minutes. The machine was so hammered by spyware, adware, viruses etc that XP changed my desktop to tell me that I have a spyware infection. Fair enough I thought, so I downloaded the tools (Spybot, Ad-aware etc) to clean it up. Away went the spyware. Subsequent checks revealed I had gotten rid of all the malware. But for some reason Windows wouldn't let me change my desktop back (I didn't have a problem anymore...)

      So we format. We try again. 4 attempts later, after finding a copy of Symantec Norton IS on my video card driver CD, installed, turned the firewall and AV on, downloaded Spybot, Ad-aware etc and their definitions and Norton AV definitions on the Mac, burnt, applied, did I dare connect the ethernet cable again.

      Frustrating to say the least.

    5. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by Nimey · · Score: 0, Troll

      You look like a pretentious wanker when you end your sentences with "..." all the time.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    6. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by rjhoffmann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Preface: I work for a Small-ish computer company in Wisconsin. Adware/Spyware/Malware (etc.. The list goes on.) Has become more of an epidemic than anything. We get roughly 20 pc's in a week to repair. Some are your run of the mill hardware failure, but most (90%) are coming in with the customer complaining that the system is just "running slow" Needless to say, I've seen everything. 180 to vx2 variants, rootkits, and rouge removal products. PC's so loaded down that the only means of repairing is an FnR. What's worse is the adware is bringing up links that claim "Your machine is infected with spyware, click here to remove". So the customer pays money to download a dodgy program that does nothing but infect their machine further. The worst part is that these programs take so long to remove that hourly labor goes thru the roof, (thus making it more cost effective to Format and Reload) In all, I know I'm just kicking the dead horse here, I'd honestly like to see companies like 180 get the feds to actually do something about it.. Probability, nil.. but its worth hope.

    7. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You look like a pretentious wanker when you critisize people's natural writing style.

    8. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by Nimey · · Score: 1

      That's "criticize".

      Hugs and kisses.

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
    9. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by Greyfox · · Score: 1
      So you have to run 4 third party programs to keep your system free of spyware. And you don't have a problem with that?

      Back in the days when I was doing OS/2 tech support, there was a good bit of concern at IBM that users didn't want to have to do a software shut down before powering their machines off. The thinking was that although system administrators on "real" operating systems accepted this as necessary, it would be a change that home users would not be willing to accept. A couple years later Microsoft introduced this in Windows 95 and users accepted it without comment.

      I often wonder if any other company besides Microsoft told its customers that you'd have to use several third party programs to keep their software even remotely safe, would the users accept that? Probably not, and yet Microsoft has somehow managed to lock users into this little mental box where having to do that is normal and acceptable. But suggest to them that they switch to Apple or Lindows and you get "Oh but it won't run my software." Which usually conists of a Windows 3.1 copy of photoshop pirated in 1993. And of course all that anti-spyware software they've invested in.

      And yes, I know that running Linux or OSX won't keep you safe if you download binaries off the web and run them in your user account. I'd still have an OS that's reasonably secure in spite of poor user security practises than have an OS that's ridiculously insecure on top of poor user security practises.

      --

      I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

    10. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by krunk4ever · · Score: 1
      I don't know how the makers of these programs live with themselves... there's nothing redeeming about what they do... AT ALL.
      maybe they don't need to think about it when they're rolling around in their money.
    11. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by metallic · · Score: 1

      I call bullshit. I've done more clean installs of Windows XP SP2 than I can remember when I was a repair monkey. I've never had the problem that you describe here.

      --
      Karma: Positive. Mostly effected by cowbell.
    12. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by metallic · · Score: 1

      Here's a few general steps to follow in case you have to do this sort of thing again. Start Windows up in safe-mode so you don't have to deal with a lot of nasty stuff being loaded on startup. Then go into System Properties and disable System Restore. Next, run HijackThis! and AutoRuns to remove anything obvious. Then run a full virus scan so that you get rid of any trojan downloaders that will simply reinfect the PC with spyware. From here, you do the heavy lifting. If you dont want to shell out money, install AdAware and Microsoft AntiSpyware. You'll have to boot into normal mode to install Microsoft AntiSpyware, but it shouldn't be that much of a problem at this point.

      --
      Karma: Positive. Mostly effected by cowbell.
    13. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      Gee, that was productive... thanks.

      I just write that way, and I've never had any issues with it in the past, so perhaps a polite 'fuck off' would be in order.

    14. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      I didn't say I didn't have a problem with that... I do... but hey, I DO need windows to run one of the bigs things I have that machine for.... Games. There's no getting away from that, I like playing games, and so Windows it is. Simple.

      But yes, it sucks a lot.

    15. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very well then: Fuck Off. Please.

    16. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by odohvare · · Score: 1

      It's money. That's why they do it.. And they make alot of money doing it. Otherwise, it wouldn't be so popular.. Or am I being to simplistic? Is there some other, darker meaning?? I don't think so...

    17. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by Achromatic1978 · · Score: 1
      1. XP SP2, installed from scratch, turns the firewall on before the install is complete.
      2. How did the malware find its way through your router firewall? Even more so if it was NATed.
      3. Presuming I read you correctly, how did the malware then find its way through your Mac bridge?
      4. Even beyond that, what malware, and just how did it attach? It doesn't just magically get loaded. Where's, for examlpe, the listening instance of IE? SMB? Whatever vector?

      I gotta say, this all makes me pretty skeptical.

    18. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by lucas+teh+geek · · Score: 3, Insightful

      i used to do heaps of porn surfing (before i got a girlfriend) and i never got any adware.
      i think the sentance you were looking for is "Of course the second of the two pcs was infected so damn badly (Spybot found over 3 thousand items) due to porn surfing with IE"

      --
      TIAEAE!
    19. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by spoco2 · · Score: 1

      Indeed you are correct sir... "with IE".

    20. Re:Your spyware stories? Here's mine by RPMentley · · Score: 1

      The desktop was changed by spyware, not XP.

      --
      Documentation: Instructions translated from Swedish by Japanese for English speaking persons.
  17. Re:Should take action against these people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the link.

    What amuses me most is the concept of the 'money-back guarantee'.

    'If you're not happy with your money - we'll give you some money instead'.

    Priceless.

  18. MOD PARENT UP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Mod parent up! He's got the right idea!

    Sincerely,

    An Anonymous Stoner

  19. Re:Should take action against these people... by Urusai · · Score: 1

    Those specie currency lunatics sound like flat-earthers. They just can't get over the fact that "real life" is more complicated than their simple minds allow for.

  20. A modest proposal by TomGrantAtXythos · · Score: 3, Interesting
    [Note: For the thuddingly literal out there, I am not actually advocating that anyone do this.]

    Go into the homes of the 180solutions executives. Rewire all their consumer electronics, from their refrigerators to their Tivo boxes. Make it very difficult to figure out what has been changed, or how to change it back. Leave a note behind saying, "We saw how you were using your home electronics and thought we could help!"

    Seriously, I see no difference between this scenario and what adware/spyware companies do with your PC. Even the EULA on adware-loaded software doesn't make it clear what's going to happen once this stuff gets unleashed on your hard drive.

    1. Re:A modest proposal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My alternate modest proposal:

      1. Start with a "ghosted" image of OS of choice.
      2. Fork a VM copy of said OS for each installed piece of software.
      3. Save "installed" programs as compressed diffs of the OS image.
      4. Launch each program as a separate virtual machine.
      5. Recurse/iterate as necessary; use version control software.

      To uninstall a program, delete your repository of the program's virtual machine state.

      p.s. PRIOR ART NOTICE: If the above constitutes a patent claim, I hereby grant every individual on the planet the right to use said method without owing any form of royalty payment. Please moderate this post appropriately so that this will find its way into the google cache and squash submarine patents on this matter.

  21. RIAA by qualico · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sure wish we could pit RIAA against 180.

    Why is it that we can have organizations like the RIAA to protect industry interests, yet there is no one to protect the interests of consumers?

    1. Re:RIAA by TechForensics · · Score: 2, Insightful

      We do have one. Or actually, fifty or so. Each state (and probably D.C.) has an Attorney General with powers to sue to stop public scams or nuisances. Usually there is a consumer protection division. People have to start bugging their A.G. It takes a lot of complaints about any particular abuse to get things moving, so go ahead.. and spread the word. CC your letter to your state and federal congresspersons. Larger volume of mail equals better chance you'll be heard.

      --
      Those are my principles, and if you don't like them... well, I have others.
    2. Re:RIAA by qualico · · Score: 1

      Good idea.
      What links exist to contact these representatives?

      More to the point, it would be nice if these representatives were as aggresive as the RIAA.

      Maybe they'll clue in when 180 infects their computers.

    3. Re:RIAA by c0d3h4x0r · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why is it that we can have organizations like the RIAA to protect industry interests, yet there is no one to protect the interests of consumers?



      Because consumers aren't the ones who have all the money.

      Well, that's not entirely true. After all, corporations only get rich because consumers buy their shit. As a group, consumers actually have all the money.

      The problem is that consumers are a bottom-up bunch, so trying to convince them all to support a single agenda and allocate money toward it is nearly impossible. Even if you can get a bunch of consumers to agree on the same agenda, you can't easily and effeciently pool all their funds together toward pushing that agenda. Consumers are armed with frustration, consumer rights groups (such as the EFF) are starved for funding, and even if someone at the top sets an agenda, they don't have the resources to make it happen.

      Corporations, on the other hand, are a top-down bunch, so a single CEO (or small group, aka the board) sets an agenda, and they can immediately throw the tons of money they've previously collected toward making it happen. They are armed with money, they make a decision, they make it happen.

      You can bet that if consumers adequately funded an organization like the EFF, such that the EFF was financially armed better than the RIAA or MPAA, you'd start seeing things change in real ways. But you can also bet that will never happen as long as corporations offer mass-desirable tangible goods for sale while consumer-rights groups only offer intangible services or mass-undesirable tangibles such as T-shirts with their logos on them.
      --
      Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
    4. Re:RIAA by qualico · · Score: 1

      T-shirts, lol!

      good answer.
      More interesting is that this model seems to exist at every level of society.
      Politics for example, take total advantage of this consumer mentality.

  22. Easy enough solution I use... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    My solution to spyware:

    Use Linux for anything I don't specifically know will do no damage. ie: most anything online is done through Linux. For any video games or webpages I specifically know to be safe, XP is fine.

  23. I for one, welcome our new anti-spam movement. by HellYeahAutomaton · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    "Oh, smashing, groovy, yay capitalism!" -- Austin Powers

  24. Re:Should take action against these people... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    The Liberty Dollar is as every bit a legal means of currency as the US Dollar. It's just not accepted everywhere. It's a private organization that has all of it's money backed up in hard silver ingots. I have ten of those certificates, ($200) and I could go in right now with those certificates and walk out with two-hundred dollars of silver ingots. In fact, I may have to buy some more, because the price of silver is going to jump up sometime sooner or later as the price of mining and refinery goes up.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  25. My guess for their next move by dthree · · Score: 1

    180 could do like Claria/Gator and sue everyone calling it spyware/adware. Then make back-door deals with the anti-spyware software developers to take them off the threat list. Sue, those who don't comply. Case dismissed!

    --
    "I forgot my mantra."
    1. Re:My guess for their next move by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      Don't give them any ideas.

  26. They're not the only evil ones... by js9kv · · Score: 5, Interesting

    180solutions are scumbags, true.

    What about 2o7.net? These bottom-feeders have been using a domain name that looks like an IP address for ages - and there's no legitimate reason for it, other than to confuse those who can't tell zero's from O's in their firewall reports. Even their hosts appear with stuff like 192.168.1.2o7.net.

    Most folks out there would miss that in a firewall report if they didn't read it closely and wonder why an IP address appeared in the resolved names column.

    What ever happened to the Internet Death Penalty? Boy, do we need it now!

    1. Re:They're not the only evil ones... by marvinglenn · · Score: 1
      What about 2o7.net?

      Firefox/Mozilla plus Adblock; add the filter "*.2o7.net/*"

      While you're at it, ad:
      *.doubleclick,net/*
      *.advertising.com/*
      *.atdmt.com/*

      There're plenty more you can add too, but I always use the above as a good start on the machines I set up. The next step is having a firewall with iptables, and then blackholing networks that host the worst of the spyware pushers.

      --
      The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
    2. Re:They're not the only evil ones... by js9kv · · Score: 1

      Good ideas, but not an enterprise deployable solution.

      Any of us can secure our workstation. It's the network that's the problem.

    3. Re:They're not the only evil ones... by boingo82 · · Score: 1

      I don't think 2o7.net is inherently evil - yes, we use SiteCatalyst for site traffic, and that means customers get cookied with 2o7.net. We're not using it for evil - just to see which areas of the site get more traffic, which are entry pages, which are exit pages, etc. It's pretty necessary information for a webmaster of a large site. There's no evil adware involved.

      --
      As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
    4. Re:They're not the only evil ones... by Professor+Bluebird · · Score: 1

      It can be done on a large corporate network, either by creating fake DNS zones for the offending sites on the local DNS server, or by blocking their IP ranges at the router level.

    5. Re:They're not the only evil ones... by js9kv · · Score: 1

      Just means you gotta take away more control from the individual as a matter of policy. As much as I try to fight DHCP, it just keeps on coming back! Thanks!

    6. Re:They're not the only evil ones... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      As Boingo pointed out, 2o7.net is the Omniture web hit counter. There's nothing evil about it -- it's just a replacement for logfile analysis software.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
    7. Re:They're not the only evil ones... by shadow_slicer · · Score: 1

      Shouldn't your webserver provide this information?
      I mean I haven't set up Apache in a while, but it has all that information, and it seems like something someone could easily write a module to do, or at least a script to parse the logs..

    8. Re:They're not the only evil ones... by boingo82 · · Score: 1

      SiteCatalyst delivers much more detailed information than we could get strictly from the server. I work at a newspaper, and SiteCatalyst can track hits to individual stories that are delivered through a content management system. This is important, because where the URL to a page may not change, the content will from day to day, and I have to be able to track visits to the content - not just the page. It also enables us to easily pull up stats for an entire site section - it provides us with 10 variables on each page, so a given page could be categorized as an article, but also be attributed to the Sports section, and also attributed to a specific publication - so if I want to pull up stats for that publication as a whole, the sports section as a whole (either in just this publication or across publications) or articles as a group, I can do it instantly.

      --
      As a republican I feel it my responsibity to manufacture criminals. People need punished!
    9. Re:They're not the only evil ones... by js9kv · · Score: 1

      Perhaps this is true, but their choice of this particular domain name implies that they're trying to hide or disguise something - that 2o7 bit confuses log files and is unnecessary. They should change their name if they're not evil.

    10. Re:They're not the only evil ones... by NutscrapeSucks · · Score: 1

      Perhaps they are, but usually the name of the site is in the domainname, eg something like apple.2o7.net.

      2o7.net also has a web page which one could check before leaping to silly conclusions.

      --
      Whenever I hear the word 'Innovation', I reach for my pistol.
  27. As a side note by Khyber · · Score: 1

    The government has no business telling us (IMHO) what we can or cannot use for payment. The Liberty Dollar is backed by real tangible assets. The US Dollar is backed by promises and debts of other countries, etc, and to me, I can't rely upon a promise like that, given the history of governments. I know of ten stores here in Memphis that will accept the certificates or coins (couple tattoo parlorss, couple shops on Beale, and other small places around town.) I've asked what they think of this currency, and they say it's far better than the government's minted and worthless paper.

    My thought? The government has no idea what "barter and trade" is all about.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    1. Re:As a side note by Ninjaesque+One · · Score: 1

      The Dollar is not backed by simple debts and promises. The Dollar is backed with nuclear weapons, an army of a million, about the same amount of guns, et al. If you really want a good currency, barter.

      --
      Ninjas and pirates. How piquant.
  28. Why Wait? by Dragoonmac · · Score: 0

    Instead of waiting for the FCC, why don't you do something yourself. Help in the fight against spyware by visiting the 180solutions website http://www.180solutions.com and pressing f5 a couple times.
    <br>
    I don't care if I go to prison for saying this. <url>http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/01/ 06/2140227</url> It needs to be said.

    --
    Shots: A Populist Parable
    1. Re:Why Wait? by odohvare · · Score: 1

      Seriously though, why in the hell would I want to goto that site? Going there and hitting F5 a couple of times would eat up .0000000000000001% of the bandwidth they take from the world anyways.. It's a useless effort(if that is what your were trying to do). Good luck in your efforts..

    2. Re:Why Wait? by RPMentley · · Score: 1

      Actually, their site is going pretty slow (though maybe that's my Internet connection....darn AOL).

      --
      Documentation: Instructions translated from Swedish by Japanese for English speaking persons.
  29. Hmm by Elshar · · Score: 1


    Where are these tactical nukes when you need them? I'm sure they'd stop after their head offices get turned into a pile of molten slag..

    1. Re:Hmm by AndroidCat · · Score: 1
      --
      One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
  30. Re:Should take action against these people... by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Informative
    In fact, I may have to buy some more, because the price of silver is going to jump up sometime sooner or later as the price of mining and refinery goes up.

    You're daft. You need to study economics. Simply put, if you buy 1 Oz .999 fine silver for $10 it will always be 1 Oz. If you put $10 into this guy's program, and it gets you the right to 1 Oz today, what do you think you get if the dollar drops (which is what this scheme is supposed to be proof against)? You get less silver because Mr NotHaus bases his value on (tada) the dollar. It's all geared to make him money at your expense.

    Want to put money into silver? Go buy a bunch of worn Walking Liberty Halves or Silver Dollars. If the dollar spirals out of control your silver coins (no matter who made them) will have value, but you'll have got a heck of a lot more of them for your money.

    You won't get me to accept those over-priced silver rounds except at the current exchange rate for silver.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  31. Why the digital wack a mole? by AHuxley · · Score: 1
    Why are they just going after the end product?

    How about a nice clear statement -
    A list of other OS options and apps - If you are having problems try them.
    Get a generation of users far away from the underlying problem.

    Scream out:
    Its the OS stupid.

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
  32. Re:Should take action against these people... by suitepotato · · Score: 1

    Those specie currency lunatics sound like flat-earthers. They just can't get over the fact that "real life" is more complicated than their simple minds allow for.

    This is a truism when applied to many many people.

    --
    If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
  33. Re:Should take action against these people... by Elminst · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I love the final quote in that article;
    "They're a pretty coin, and they're backed by silver. It's a commodity that's going up in value, unlike the U.S. dollar."

    Oooo it's PURTY!!!
    And going up in value? WTF? Silver is BARELY starting to recover from being at it's LOWEST value in nearly 600 YEARS (under $4 in 2002)!!
    As of today, 1 oz of silver is worth $9.02. And these SCHMUCKS pay $20 for one coin. Yeah.. that's a really good investment there, buddy.

    --
    No unauthorized use. Trespassers will be shot. Survivors will be shot again.
  34. Who would respond to an ad delivered this way? by bdwoolman · · Score: 1
    And who would pay to have an ad placed this way?

    Advertising works. (Ask the folks at Absolute). Do you really mind a properly sized static ad? I don't. And sometimes they are of interest. I used Opera with ads when it worked that way...and Eudora. With Opera you could even say what kind of ads you wanted. Fair enough. And Google has really cashed in on getting low-key ads into context.

    But sleazoid schemes like this defy all logic. Ads don't work when they are coming at people as an assault. They are killing broadcast radio's appeal as well. Morons!

    As I said, what astounds me are the vendors who want to promote this way. Hmmmm. Maybe it works sort of by accident. As desperate people try to kill the popoups they sometimes activate the link by mistake. I guess sometimes they like what they see...

    Anyway, I hope the Feds mop the floor with these buttmunchers.

    --
    "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
    1. Re:Who would respond to an ad delivered this way? by 808140 · · Score: 1

      There's a concept in marketing: any attention, even negative attention, is good attention. I'm not being tongue in cheek, I'm quite serious. It has to do with psychology. Let me explain.

      In today's world, we are assaulted daily with a barage of advertisements from numerous vendors, the vast majority of which we probably won't be able to recall 20 minutes after the advertisement. As an exercize, think of all the annoying popups and such you've seen on the internet. What do you remember about them? My guess is not much. Most users aren't as tech-savvy as the Slashdot crowd, and see even more of these than we do -- ten minutes later, the only thing that remains of a popup is the feeling of annoyance.

      Sure, lots of people say, "I'll never buy anything from these jerks because of their invasive advertising," but unless you can clearly recall each and every invasive advertiser you've ever experienced you haven't a hope in hell of making good on that threat.

      Consider also that most people who advertise in this manner are not the big brands -- it's not Coca Cola or Microsoft. The reason is simple: for brands with strong recognition, invasive advertisement backfires. If you saw an advert for Mac OS X delivered to your Windows desktop courtesy of 180solutions, how would that change your perception of Apple? Probably for the worse, and so Apple would never try that. But for companies without brand recognition, they don't sweat the "I'm going to boycott their products" line that people spout, because there's a massive amount of evidence that viewers aren't able to recall who the annoying advertiser was all that well after being exposed to it anyway.

      What's the upside then? Well, this is the beauty of the situation (from their perspective, not yours). Later, when you're browsing at the supermarket, and you need to buy some product that you don't care much about -- say, I don't know, corn starch -- and there are a number of brands to choose from, you will be more likely to buy from a brand that you've heard about.

      But because of the way your memory works, you probably won't be able to recall where you heard about them. You'll probably just think to yourself, "Oh, I've heard about this brand somewhere before" and think "maybe a friend recommended it to me." or something similar. Your exposure to the brand was so quick that the only imprint it leaves on you is subconcious.

      I'm sure some Slashdotters will say "I remember every popup brand and make sure not to buy from them" and while there may be people like that (although privately I doubt it) studies have borne out what I'm saying for the vast majority of people. You can annoy the hell out of someone, but in the grand scheme of things, lots of things annoy the hell out of people and as long as you're not considerably more annoying than everyone else your target's brain will cut it out as a sort of white noise, all while increasing the target's recognition of your brand.

      So it's a win-win situation for them, which is why spyware is so profitable. They pay very little for a relatively effective marketing technique.

    2. Re:Who would respond to an ad delivered this way? by bdwoolman · · Score: 1

      808140. Thanks for your considered and well-written reply. Of course you are right. Primacy, recency, subliminal. All that stuff is real. I guess I was thinking of a known brand where the technique would backfire. And you know it worked for X10, those camera people. And would Clear Channel be so big if obnoxious ads did not move product?

      I do not suffer from this stuff. I have the right defense tools and I stay off the net's back alleys. I do think people should get educated (perhaps banks could provide incentives to people to secure themselves better when they start to use online banking) but, in the end, there is a sucker born every minute. They are the confidence trickster's meat and potatoes. Always have been. Something like the internet is a perfect hunting ground.

      The bad thing is that this sort of thing draws more regulation. People start to welcome in the federal marshall to clean up dodge. This is not a happy solution, but I fear it is well under way. Hope it does not wind up in us needing a "net license" like you need a ham radio license. Just kidding, but it is sad. All this criminality casts a shadow on the rest of us.

      d:-b

      --
      "No fear. No envy. No meanness." Liam Clancy
  35. you should be put in prison by BitterAndDrunk · · Score: 1

    For your awful tags.
    ?? Are you serious? Man, it wouldn't even work in UBB where it would have to be [url].
    Oy vay. That's the problem with geek chic. Too little geek, too much chic.

    --
    You better watch out, there may be dogs about . . .
    1. Re:you should be put in prison by Dragoonmac · · Score: 1

      In my defense, I have only been working with Livejournal lately. Oh well, should've used preview...

      -Dragoonmac
      "Too little geek, too much chic"

      --
      Shots: A Populist Parable
  36. It looks like their luck... by Blazeix · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...is about to turn 180 degrees.

  37. Re:Should take action against these people... by ackthpt · · Score: 2, Insightful
    As of today, 1 oz of silver is worth $9.02. And these SCHMUCKS pay $20 for one coin. Yeah.. that's a really good investment there, buddy.

    Not only that, but his digital dollars are like Enron stock. If all hell breaks loose and we suffer a depression, where do you think you'll find Mr. NotHaus? With all those reserves in the Bahamas, I betcha. Yet, people still continue to believe they can get something for nothing.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  38. Re:Should take action against these people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    I could go in right now with those certificates and walk out with two-hundred dollars of silver ingots.


    If I'm reading this scam correctly, you would (assuming it isn't outright theft) walk out with 10 oz of silver. Go to a silver market and find that you will only get about 90 of the dirty green notes for the silver you paid 200 of the dirty green notes for.

    Good thing those dirty green notes are worthless, otherwise you might feel bad about your loss.

    But - I hear you say - When silver takes off/ the dollar crashes, you'll be sitting pretty. Well, yes and no.

    Again, assuming that the whole scam here is that they are fleecing you for the 11 dollars, not that they will cut and run when they have milked all they can, lets watch what happens when silver is $30/oz.

    Well, then you have made $100 (green) Not as good as the $220 (green) you would have made if you had just bought silver instead of this scam, but hey- you are above water. Congratulations. Find a smelter, because the "currency" value of your silver will lose you money.

    Right now, folks stupid enough to accept these coasters are doing it 1-1 with the green dollars. You have to assume that this will continue even if they achieve their face value. The local bar is not going to support a floating exchange for a few odd customers, and the "Mint" producing these gems will either close (making sure that only a few odd customers will ever have them) or "revalue" them at $100 (green) per $20 (silver) (again, making sure that only a few odd customers will ever have them)

    If you want to invest in silver, do yourself a favor and buy it at market value. You'll get a lot more.

  39. they should be put into Jail for min 10 yrs by holywarrior21c · · Score: 1

    and must not allow them to gain access to any kind of electronics for life... oh and yes massive fine... i mean by percentage not by actual $$ , sometimes fines become obsolete for some people or companies like $300 Million fine given to $100 Blillion revenue a year earning Samsung electronics company. of course his family should be protected and their information must not be outsourced. i almost thought i was writing about rapist. am i? yes it is, lemme check, yes. oups no, it is about spammers and malware creator. hmm i can't tell the difference of it too clearly.

  40. A Not so modest proposal by RobertLTux · · Score: 1

    1 long term: every program must come with a list of files (and config entries) and their purpose and if an UNINSTALL is requested all files and config entries must be reversed/removed (no self repairing stuff) 2 somebody needs to come up with a Linux LiveCD that has an antivirus/ "funkware" program with a: ntfs read write b: a way to dump the reghive *hijack the windows files if its needed since the system would have a licsense anyway heck it doesn't need to have anything fancy x.org and a barebones WM would work (for the gui folks)

    --
    Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
  41. 180 solutions spyware news by mcguyver · · Score: 3, Informative

    For details on 180 solutions tricks go to http://www.benedelman.org. It has screenshots of 180 solutions in action...pretty detailed and interesting to read. I'm especially amused by this recent bit of jousting going on between 180 solutions and Ben Edelman. Here Ben accuses 180 solutions of targetting kids as well as being deceptive. 180 solutions responded and here are Ben's latest additions to the arguments. This is a great (and sad) example of how people choose to define the law when it's not explicitly defined.

  42. oh another idea... by holywarrior21c · · Score: 1

    They should track ip adresses where the adware is installed and find the user and pay them money... for hirassing and mentally turning the victim to a immortal being and wasting our time...about $30M each person fu ck i n r a pi sts! s h it th at as sholes th ey should be executed by public open torture and shooting.

  43. Re:Should take action against these people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How totally fucking gullible are you?

    First and foremost, it is not legal tender. Period. If the organization claims otherwise, they are committing a criminal offense.

    Secondly, if this company--note how they are a company whereas the US Federal Reserve is not--legitimately wanted to introduce this currency, and you were willing to accept it, they would give it as change in the normal course of their business, AND exchange it at par, no questions asked, with real US currency at any time. They do neither.

  44. Re:Should take action against these people... by patio11 · · Score: 1
    I don't see why the above is labeled as flamebait. Its true, you can trade Liberty Dollars for goods/services just as much as you could trade bottles of honey or Magic cards *so long as the other party will take them*. Regular old dollars aren't the only legal currency to use, they're just the only legal tender -- this means that if you attempt to pay a debt with dollars and the dollars are refused you have satisfied your legal obligation to repay the debt (the same is not true of Liberty Dollars, bottles of honey, and Magic cards).

    Are Liberty Dollars a sound investment decision? Oh, heck no. In no concievable circumstance. You'd be better putting your money in bottles of honey or Magic cards. But if folks want to esteem them above their worth as a metal because they look pretty, it gives them a sense of security in tumultuous times, or because they like the frisson they get from rebelling from Uncle Sam in a teeny tiny way, hey, they're not hurting anybody. Of course, if my father hit his head one morning, woke up, and decided "I'm going to cash out my savings account and turn it into Liberty Dollars" I'd be a little upset.

  45. Re:FISH! by ewhac · · Score: 2, Funny

    You're improving, Rimmer. Last time, you wrote that 400 times, did a silly little dance, and then fainted.

  46. Death to the Scum Suckers that make Spyware by venuspcs · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Okay a couple things I want to say:

    1.) 180 Solutions has now resorted to FLAT OUT HACKING to get their shit on your computer. I use Firefox 99% of the time. Today, while reading Slashdot (in Firefox) my computer mysteriously rebooted. When it came back up (for a few minutes) I noticed that I now had 180 solutions crap all over my fracking computer. Attempts to clean it caused my computer to reboot again and again and again. I wound up having to do a System Restore to a few hours earlier. These FUCKERS WILL PAY!

    2.) While I am a big fan of ALTERNATE Operating Systems, having the GENERAL PUBLIC switch to them would not solve the problem, for long. The reason Linux, Unix and MacOS don't have this problem is because there isn't a big enough user base to make figuring out how to infect these systems PROFITABLE. If you had a massive move of people to these OS's then they Spyware people would just move too.

    3.) Someone asked why there is an RIAA to protect CORPORATE INTERESTS but nothing to protect CONSUMER INTERESTS. Well there are several reasons: 1.) They have BILLIONS OF DOLLARS, 2.) They work together (probably the most important) to form these groups like the RIAA, 3.) We (the voters) keep electing these low-life son-of-a-bitches that PROTECT CORPORATE AMERICA while SCREWING CONSUMERS and 4.) American's (the consumers) have become complacent and won't TAKE A STAND against CORPORATE AMERICA to PROTECT OUR RIGHTS.

    If people would spend half as much time BITCHING ONLINE (Like I am doing right now) and more time FORMING A GROUP then we might have enough power to CHANGE THINGS.

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    Richard Colbert
    Web: http://www.venuspcservice.com/
    ICQ: 14466429
    YIM: cmptrgeeknshermantx
    MSN: pcheaven2k at hotmail dot com

    1. Re:Death to the Scum Suckers that make Spyware by TallMatthew · · Score: 1
      The reason Linux, Unix and MacOS don't have this problem is because there isn't a big enough user base to make figuring out how to infect these systems PROFITABLE.

      Wrong. The reason these operating systems don't have this problem is because software (notably the browser) is generally run by people as an unprivileged user, not as the administrator (root). A Windows box has hooks all over the place to make installing software easy for people who don't grasp computing concepts very easily, notably the concept of user permissions. That's what gets exploited.

    2. Re:Death to the Scum Suckers that make Spyware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they hacked your SHIFT KEY because it turns ON AND OFF a lot.

    3. Re:Death to the Scum Suckers that make Spyware by Vegeta99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, because they're so secure it'll keep people from screwing themselves.

      A safe only does good when you REMEMBER TO LOCK IT. On Windows, before an ActiveX or whatever control can install itself, it pops up a window asking you what to do.

      But then people sign things with the name "CLICK YES!!!!!!!!! TO CONTINUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111one!!!1 or you cannot use the intarweb!" and of course users click Yes. What's to stop Joe Sixpack from entering the root password when asked for it if the website he visited said he needed this unnamed software to view it? People are stupid. People are not going to set up proper user permissions.

  47. What makes you think the feds care? by SleepyHappyDoc · · Score: 1

    I don't think the government has any interest in protecting our privacy. They pay lip service at press conferences, but nothing seems to change. An example, for all the Canadians voting in the federal election today...if you received one of those cards in the mail that says you are registered to vote, that means your name and address, along with other personal information, is on the federal voters list. This list isn't just for the government...it's distributed to each candidate for each party running in that election. That's right, your name, your address, and your personal information is in the hands of the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and even the Marijuana Party if you've filed a Canadian tax return in the past 10 years or so and didn't check the tiny little box excluding the CCRA from sharing your information. Once it's in the hands of the public, it can go anywhere (be stolen from the campaign office, or even sold to help finance the campaign). There are laws against the redistribution of this information, but the laws in place are essentially unenforceable, and punishing an offender after the damage has been done does nothing to protect our privacy. So you'll pardon me if I have little faith in the governments interest in protecting us.

    --
    Stasis is death. Embrace change.
  48. CJB.net wtf happened!? by SteveXE · · Score: 1

    I remember back in the days when AOL was cool and we all...well most of us used punters and all that crap CJB.net was a godsend. It was the difference between

    www.angelfire.com/moonbeam/wtf/12672/usa/east/omfg /some/one/shorten/this/url/index.htm
    and
    whatever.cjb.net (redirect)

    I guess when times got tough they went down the wrong road instead of finding ways to add value to their service. Its too bad because this is an excellent example of a do good company that went the wrong way, hopefully Google never has to do the same...if they havent already.

    1. Re:CJB.net wtf happened!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, their dns forwarding service works just fine today. It is just the url cloaker/forwarder that is spammed. I have been using cjb.net with both my web server and mail server for years, without any problems at all. The url forwarding service has been full of ads since as long as i recall.

  49. 180solutions ranked 7 in Inc. Magazine by GT_Alias · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought this was a pretty amusing article:

    Search Marketing Company 180solutions Ranks Seventh On the 2005 Inc. 500 (press release on 180solutions.com web site)

    Either Inc. didn't do their research on companies in their top 10, or they truly don't care how the money is made, only that it is made.

    1. Re:180solutions ranked 7 in Inc. Magazine by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mother fuckers! Inc Magazine must die! http://www.google.com/search?q=180-solutions+site: inc.com

  50. My 180 Solution by Ranger · · Score: 1

    String 'em up by the balls. Then they'll be 180.

    --
    "You'll get nothing, and you'll like it!"
  51. Remember this by joe+coffee · · Score: 1

    Maybe everyone should remember the sites they visited when they got JACKED. Its a big chore but maybe putting up those sites will also force the hands of those companies to take action. One that I came across awhile back was from NEXTEL and SPRINT. Just a thought.

  52. Better Solution by svunt · · Score: 1

    If the complainant wants to send me a photo of 180 Solutions's CEO, I'd be more than happy to take care of the situation myself, and will even pay for my own ski mask & baseball bat. These pricks got me once, and I had to shower twenty times a day, I felt so dirty & violated.

    1. Re:Better Solution by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This page:
      http://www.spywareguide.com/creator_show.php?id=97
      Will give you the details on this company. Zoomable map, sattelite images. Even integrates with Google driving instructions. :)

    2. Re:Better Solution by exa · · Score: 1

      It's a good day for drive by shooting in WA.

      --
      --exa--
  53. Re:Should take action against these people... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    You must not have read (nor even asked for) the packet that these people will ship you. I have. That silver won't devalue. Those certificates are stamped for "this person paid $$$ for 1 oz .999 fine silver" No mater what YOUR economy does/drops, that person's economy GUARANTEES me that exact same weight. That's why I have the certificates. Redeem for 1oz silver, fuck what the US Economy does. I'll still get my 10 oz worth of silver with the ten certificates I have, and it won't matter one bit because when silver jumps up, I sell the silver, flat-out. His money's guaranteed (unless someone steals all that silver),) the US's isn't. Deal. Learn the full details about the program before knocking it, please.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  54. Re:Should take action against these people... by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Liberty Dollars are a sound investment. Don't get the coins, get the certificates. "This person paid $$$ for 1 Oz .999 fine silver." And they can be redeemed. Watch as silver prices start rising eventually. Sell. Profit!!!! Not conceivably profitable, maybe, depends on how much the silver gains.

    As for the AC at the bottom of my post, he must be a total tool. NOBODY HAS TO ACCEPT US CURRENCY IF THEY DON'T FUCKING WANT TO. They can accept blowjobs, someone getting killed, or other shit, as "PAYMENT FOR SERVICES RENDERED." Fucktard.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  55. Ripped off from another /. user by CaptainZapp · · Score: 1
    Much simpler:

    Send them a detailed map of the power supply in their PC and advise them to piss on it.

    --
    ich bin der musikant

    mit taschenrechner in der hand

    kraftwerk

  56. Re:Should take action against these people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Allegedly due to the invention of digital cameras. Less film sold = less demand for silver.

  57. Why should 180 be treated differently than msft? by walterbyrd · · Score: 1

    The DoJ completely changed msft's behavior by getting msft to promise to behave better. Right?

    Considering how well that worked, why should 180 be treated any differently?

  58. Re:FISH! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes!

    I love you.

  59. Re:Should take action against these people... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Except that if the US dollar actually did collapse and America fell into the kind of chaos that would require a barter system, then your pal who has that vault full of silver ingots would pack it all up into a van and disappear before you could cash them in.

    Sucker.

  60. Re:Should take action against these people... by ackthpt · · Score: 1
    His money's guaranteed (unless someone steals all that silver),) the US's isn't. Deal. Learn the full details about the program before knocking it, please.

    His money's guaranteed only so long as he's around to guarantee it. What happens if his little scam runs afowl and he loses his assets? You lose, too.

    Best to buy your own silver and if the dollar loses significant value you can still barter in silver coins, which will certainly hold value and you don't have to trust some slick smitty to back it up for you.

    --

    A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
  61. Their clients by EnsilZah · · Score: 1

    The cilents should also be sued.
    I'm thinking of this as of someone hiring a hitman.
    Sure, the hitman did the actual killing, but the guy who hired him is also responsible.

    If their clients are also held responsible, it might put a dent in their source of income.

  62. website doesnt work by cheekyboy · · Score: 1

    Dude, the website doesnt work.

    Want to offer a copy of the program publicly somewhere? or a torrent? or just hack it by rebranding it and re-release it on tucows.

    --
    Liberty freedom are no1, not dicks in suits.
    1. Re:website doesnt work by springbox · · Score: 1

      http://www.tucows.com/preview/213160. The other one works for me anyway.

  63. Interesting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Spyware Archive has more info on 180 Solutions. Should be a very interesting trial and hopefully they end up in jail forced to write uninstallers that actually WORK!