Slashdot Mirror
A Day in the Life of a Spyware Company
prostoalex writes "Business Week has a detailed expose of Direct Revenue. The article has some juicy details on the everyday workings of a spyware outlet, talks about the the business model and advertisers who funnel cash to Direct Revenue, and even mentions Direct Revenue's anti-spyware achievements (the company's installer blasted away competing spyware apps, so that the user's computer wouldn't be overwhelmed with redundant pop-ups)."
No, they did it so that users are more likely to click their popups rather than someone else's.
How to stop them in three easy steps:
find executives
kill them (or pay a crackhead to do it)
rejoice
Thus illustrating the old saying "for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." When it becomes OK to kill anyone that does something you don't like, it also becomes equally possible that others will kill you when you do something they don't care for. But of course you're a good enough troll to know that already.
And for every truth, there's a way to simplify it to the point of idiocy. When someone's doing something that causes you a significant amount of hardship and is making money doing it, they aren't just "doing something you don't like".
That said, I think killing them would be a bit harsh (unless the spyware managed to lock up a computer doing something truly important, but taking a two-by-four to some non-vital parts of their body would be appropriate. That's about what most people would do to an adult they caught vandalizing their car.
How about we vote? Me: give him death via organ donation
Long ago I stopped reading email bounce messages. If my email bounces, oh well. It's just lost. I get hundreds of bounces each day for emails that spammers sent in my name.
My email does bounce though, all the time. It bounces because everybody and their dog invents a brutal spam filter, each one differently flawed.
Just today I failed to communicate with somebody. Gmail sends from *.google.com instead of gmail.com, which is enough to bounce and/or silently delete the mail.
Even after filtering, much of the email I get is spam.
Lately, I don't even bother reading email that claims to come from banks that I actually do business with. Figuring out the legitimacy multiple times per day is too time-consuming.
Email is my primary communication method. It has been ruined. I can no longer rely on messages to be delivered and read. This has been a grave loss for me. I'm just one of many. So yes, the spammer should die. Humanity loses too much from this sort of behavior.
I think the word achievement is very apropos in this context (as, like many other english words, it has multiple possible meanings/connotations) - they developed a considerable amount of technology, both to disable other spyware, and to prevent their spyware from being likewise removed. This is a signficant achievement, one which was in no small part a reason for their success. It can be recognized as such when readers isolate their analytical mind from their moral repugnance.
Also do remember that they are in the business of making money, not of causing problems for the user (that, to them, is merely an unfortunate side effect) - likely some people at that job slept easier knowing at least their software did one useful thing.
An article about internet advertising that makes me click through 5 pages for just one article. Its a shame I didn't click past the first page.
They were only copying what Xerox, Apple and others had already done.
If computers could only be used by people who knew how to administer the, then there would be far fewer computers in use. Most people do not want to learn about computers, they are not interested. Ease of use is necessary.
It is also perfectly possible to have an OS that is easy to administer and reasonably secure. I have friends who no absolutely nothing about computers who have no problems with Macs. My father finds Ubuntu easier than Windows (although I initially installed it for him and occasionally give him some help).
It is not ease of use that is the problem. It is bad design, poor implementation and simply not caring about security.
It amounts to stalking, spying, possibly breaking and entering, and stealing, and the porn pop-ups break federal laws.
When you go to many websites, such as Amazon or Adam & Eve, you can expect as much privacy as in a local mall. But if someone were to follow you around from store to store, at that point it would be stalking.
Now when that "someone" (spyware company) breaks into your property (your computer) to install something without your consent (spyware programs), it's beyond just your typical stalking and into spying. Add to the charge that this "person" didn't have permission to enter your property in any way and you can add breaking and entering to this.
To run this program that you didn't consent to having uses power you are paying for. If it causes your system to crash, if you are someone who can't fix it, you've got to pay someone to repair it for you. Money out of your pocket. Theft. At the least of your own time to fix it.
When you go to a porn site, you usually have to click something saying you are at least 18 or of legal age to view sexually explicit material, and that you consent to doing so. If you were to sit a minor in front of the computer, or were to allow a minor to be nearby while viewing said material, you've commited an offense for which you could be required to register as a sex offender. But yet porn pop-ups happen on sites that aren't sexual in nature, sites that kids sometimes visit. The spyware company is giving no notice whatsoever that sexual material is about to pop up, no chance to consent or for children to be removed from the room first. Would this not be a violation of federal laws by the spyware companies by exposing minors to sexual material?
So I repeat, why is spyware not illegal?
It's a girl!
"think it would be significantly less effort for you to transition to a new email address. This time, don't give it out to anyone you don't trust. Get a throw away address for that and filter/forward it."
Tried that - doesn't work. Why?
Well, a lot of the people I email use Windows (I know, I know) and they are frequently compromised. The attacker gets their email list and Bingo!
Actually it does work, for a while. But then the rot starts and slowly, but surely the spam mounts up again.
But that isn't the point. The point is that MS products are closed-source. You couldn't know how your 'trusty' windoze data warehouse (after all, that's the point of the 'tool') worked even if you understood how computers worked, which you probably don't if you claim to have a "stable" XP system you've had to restore just once. Windows users have been electroshocked into thinking that "stable" means "don't have to restore or reinstall this week". You are the exact prototype of the person MS invented Windoze to serve: oops, bandwidth gone ... oops, disk space gone ... oops, data gone ... oops, data compromised ... oops, identity stolen. Oh well, I can always go back to the last system restore point and all's fine again. NOT.
I will not run windoze. Malware/spyware/viruses (gee, thanks ... as if I didn't know that) and plain old crappy engineering are the reasons. I don't waste time or risk data re-installing a faulty OS. I haven't ever had a problem with spyware, and I've never had to run a virus scanner. But I've listened to seemingly millions of people tell me all about it. I've seen enough windoze boxes stopped dead cold to keep me away from it.
Had you read the article, you would have read that you don't have to download stupid crap any more. That was 1996 state of the windoze invasion art. It's 2006. Your windoze box can be infected by simply visiting any one of a number of web sites. They're inventing new ways of infecting your machine faster than the virus scanners can be updated. Are you sure you're not infected? I wouldn't be too sure, especially if you don't know how your machine works. Would you understand infection if it stared you in the face? Do you accept cookies? Do you run DirectX? Do you ever open e-mail attachments? It's not as simple as avoiding dumb downloads any more.
A virus scanner shouldn't be necessary. But for survival with Windoze, you must have one; and even then you're not safe. By definition, the malware writers are one step ahead of your scanner. This is the end result of running the worst-designed OS available today combined with greed. The greed starts with MS and ends all the way at the advertisers. Your windoze box is just the tool to expose you to their messages and get to your wallet.
Founding member: He-Man Windoze Hater Club
I've been thinking about this alot lately, and why *not* make Site Operator's or ISP's liable for the client's activities?
This is a very bad idea. Telecommunications companies enjoy what is called "common carrier status" meaning they are not responsible typically for the nature of the content across their networks. Instead, they are merely "common carriers." Can you imagine AT&T being charged because of a discussion over their long distance service that ended up involving illegal activity? The first time you make a carrier responsible for the activity on their network, you require all carriers to monitor everyone's traffic in order to avoid liability. That's the end of any remaining semblance of privacy or personal security any of us have.
"If one of the infected computers ends up being a government machine, under the USA Patriot Act, this could be a capital crime"
Dude, the PATRIOT act is a virtual blank check for Government/LE abuse.
Don't toy with our emotions by giving us one GOOD way it could be (but never will be) abused... er.. used.!
they are in the business of making money, not of causing problems for the user (that, to them, is merely an unfortunate side effect) - likely some people at that job slept easier knowing at least their software did one useful thing.
You are way too kind to this scum. Their rationalization was that there was money to be made but not for long and that only those who struck hardest would make it. The dirt bag interviewed admitted this by quoting Douglas, "Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them." The business model only worked as long as there were only a few dirt bags trying to impose the maximum tolerable burden. They knew that everyone who could care less would jump into it and soon the burden would be intolerable to anyone.
The only thing that made them feel better was the money they were making as they burnt down your computer. Hopefully, most of that money will be taken away.
The same thoughts can be applied to WGA.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.