Slashdot Mirror


Adware Spreads Through Myspace

Sandbagger writes "Here's an interesting problem for MySpace — groups of websites that entice MySpace users into placing videos onto their profile pages (under the guise of 'free content'), without disclosing a key piece of information that might make them think twice. When someone visits one of these profiles carrying the video, a DRM acquisition box pops up and attempts to install Zango adware. In all likelihood, the profile owners don't even know these videos are doing this to their visitors. The end result is an Adware affiliate effectively removing himself from the distribution chain and letting kids promote these videos instead, in a strange example of viral marketing gone wrong."

209 comments

  1. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 5, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  2. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by trickonion · · Score: 5, Funny

    this is too much like an AIDS outbreak in a sex offender prison I can't be sad for this

    --
    I got you an Andes mint, but it melted in my pocket
  3. just another reason... by geekylinuxkid · · Score: 0, Troll

    ... that im happy to use linux and not have to worry about malware, spyware, or anything else that totally brings windows to a crawl.

    1. Re:just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      From a near fulltime windows user (thanks to work). Spyware doesn't bring windows to a crawl. Its already there. Spyware just kinda finishes it off.

    2. Re:just another reason... by supremespleen · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm happy to be using Windows with instant functionality to any piece of freeware I find. I'm happy to be able to head to the store, grab a game, and know it will work. Those Windows users that have their computers eaten by spyware need to learn to protect themselves, simple as that.

    3. Re:just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      And I'm happy that I don't need to find freeware; it finds me at the drop of an apt-cache. I'm happy to have a development environment that doesn't make me want to murder small furry woodland animals. And most importantly, I'm happy that my operating system is not a one-size-fits-all deal from a company that annually rapes everyone for their MSDN license.

    4. Re:just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks for the tip! That's what I love about this site, always something new to learn!

    5. Re:just another reason... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      By "Not needing to find freeware" I often run into "Not able to find the software I need to get the job done." The "one size fits all" means that many more developers are willing to put in the effort to make software for it. Yeah, I run windows. I have primarilly run Windows for well over 10 years. In that time I had one worm, which incidentally came from someone inside the network who installed software downloaded via a filesharing program which had a trojan with the virus packed inside... (probably targeted at university dorms.) I learned to also turn on the firewall to the internal network after that.

      I've also been doing adware scans since Ad-aware came out, and all I ever get hits for is tracking cookies (No big deal, in my mind.)

      To stay clean, simply stop using IE, don't visit suspicious sites (There's enough free porn out there without risk. It's the flashy cursors, download assistants and glitzy stuff like that which seem to get you.) Read reviews before installing software. Primarilly, really think about it before you click a dialog button.

    6. Re:just another reason... by Dasaru · · Score: 1

      I agree with this. It is very wise to know what to click and what not to click when determining if there is spyware included. But there is one problem with that. There are too many young age kids and people with not a lot of computer knowledge on myspace. The companies that send spyware through videos should clearly state that they are doing it. Not only in the User Agreement, but also in the general advertisement of the company (or whatever they advertise)

  4. On that note... by HaloZero · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Upon refreshing the main page, I found a slide-out Microsoft flash ad. That thing was annoying as hell, and it keeps coming up.

    On Adware and Myspace: it was a pandemic waiting to happen. One of those nasty traits of a large populus, is that when something becomes sufficiently commonplace and comfortable, it becomes an easy target. It's my understanding that myspace is riddled with holes, bugs, etc. That being said, it's only a matter of time until those are found, and exploited.

    Though I understand it doesn't end with Myspace, as the attack used is not explicitly limited to that social networking service; it simply is the vehicle for the delivery, and a prime candidate with a vulnerable userbase.

    Unrelatedly, I heard a random statistic that said that some asinine percentage of the net's streaming video traffic was due to Myspace. I brushed it off, as, well, that's a sortof silly thing to take to heart, but I wonder if there's any truth to it.

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
    1. Re:On that note... by Pancake+Bandit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I went to my campus' computer lab to type up a paper before class (yeah, I wait until the last minute) and, of course, every computer was in use. I kid you not, 90% of the people using one of the computers was on a myspace page. To many younger internet users, it's become an important part of their social life.

    2. Re:On that note... by narfbot · · Score: 1

      A myspace epidemic? It's already happened. We should have realized by now.

    3. Re:On that note... by narfbot · · Score: 2, Informative

      Oh, BTW, if you read that, you'll find that it didn't even require a myspace site bug. It was just IE badly interpreting a page. The key is the large homogenious mass of people and myspace gave it that.

    4. Re:On that note... by HaloZero · · Score: 1

      It's funny that you picked up on that. Infact, I explicity stated almost exactly that in my initial post. Thanks for the contribution!

      --
      Informatus Technologicus
    5. Re:On that note... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0, Troll
      90% of the people using one of the computers was on a myspace page

      90% using one of the computers?

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    6. Re:On that note... by Buran · · Score: 3, Insightful

      90% of the people using one of the computers was on a myspace page

      And you could have walked up to any of them and said "Excuse me, I have a paper to write and I need this computer." And if they refused to give it to you, had them removed by lab staff. University computers are for academics first, and anyone who needs them for that purpose can boot off anyone who is just goofing off.

    7. Re:On that note... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Alternatively, walk up to one of them and violently smash their head into the display, kicking the head again as the body slumps to the ground. Look around menacingly and say "You myspace fuckers LEAVE NOW!", then be seated and do some work.

    8. Re:On that note... by alphasubzero949 · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that is easier said than done. If MySpace is consuming almost all of the resources available at computer labs, the departments need to block it.

      Some are already doing so.

    9. Re:On that note... by Buran · · Score: 1

      Difficult? Not really. That's what lab assistants are for.

    10. Re:On that note... by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      The AC is correct. This should be considered standard procedure when dealing with Myspace users. I've also noticed that repeatedly hitting them with a sharp object produces equally good results.

    11. Re:On that note... by IamTheRealMike · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It's my understanding that myspace is riddled with holes, bugs, etc.

      I guess the fact that this has nothing to do with MySpace and is a problem with the design of Windows Media DRM escaped you? MySpace is being targetted because it's the culture there to put free videos of stuff you like on your profile page. There's actually nothing MySpace can do to stop this as far as I can see as the "problem" is simply that they make it easy for people to publish videos they like using Windows Media Player. Short of banning it this one sits in Microsofts problem pile.

    12. Re:On that note... by creepynut · · Score: 1

      That's more fun too, but at least in this case, you have a reason for doing it :)

    13. Re:On that note... by Skim123 · · Score: 1

      Unrelatedly, I heard a random statistic that said that some asinine percentage of the net's streaming video traffic was due to Myspace. I brushed it off, as, well, that's a sortof silly thing to take to heart, but I wonder if there's any truth to it.

      Serve 1.5 billion page views per day with craptacular homepages rife with videos and you're very likely to have a significant percentage of the streaming video traffic.

      --

      I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.

  5. A real reason to block the site by Joe+The+Dragon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Now sysadmins can block this and say that it has adware / spyware and we can't let are users go there.

    1. Re:A real reason to block the site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or learn how to spell "our"...

    2. Re:A real reason to block the site by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Once again I have to point out that people make accidents. An accident is not the same tihng as deliberately misspelling something. Slashdot's lack of editing functions prevent people from fixing those accidents if they go unnoticed. Go bitch and moan to whomever is in charge of Slashdot's software.

    3. Re:A real reason to block the site by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      See? I made a spelling error right there. I'm sure someone will come along shortly to loudly complain about it.

    4. Re:A real reason to block the site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe the lack of an editing feature is a conscious decision. It could be used to fix little mistakes, but most likely would primarilly be used by trolls who either 1)post deliberate errors which are sure to get someone to respond, then change the errors so anyone who replies appears to be an idiot or 2)karmawhore post something that is pretty much guaranteed to get modded up, then change it so it furthers the troll's agenda (whether that's linking people to the goatse guy, crapflooding or... whatever.)

    5. Re:A real reason to block the site by Fred_A · · Score: 1

      Actually it's more like a typo.

      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    6. Re:A real reason to block the site by leonmergen · · Score: 1

      I believe the lack of an editing feature is a conscious decision. It could be used to fix little mistakes, but most likely would primarilly be used by trolls who either 1)post deliberate errors which are sure to get someone to respond, then change the errors so anyone who replies appears to be an idiot or 2)karmawhore post something that is pretty much guaranteed to get modded up, then change it so it furthers the troll's agenda (whether that's linking people to the goatse guy, crapflooding or... whatever.)

      Then tell me, as it has been proposed as a solution to this many times, how does the rule "only edit within 10 minutes after the post and if no-one has replied yet" not fix those problems ?

      --
      - Leon Mergen
      http://www.solatis.com
    7. Re:A real reason to block the site by bsartist · · Score: 1
      how does the rule "only edit within 10 minutes after the post and if no-one has replied yet" not fix those problems ?
      The "no reply" clause means you'd have to catch the typo yourself, and we already have the means to do that with the "preview" button.
      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    8. Re:A real reason to block the site by Das+Modell · · Score: 1

      Well, something like that anyway.

    9. Re:A real reason to block the site by leonmergen · · Score: 1

      The "no reply" clause means you'd have to catch the typo yourself, and we already have the means to do that with the "preview" button.

      .. which we all should, but few of us actually do. The parent post which actually contained the typo that started this discussion is a perfect example of that.

      --
      - Leon Mergen
      http://www.solatis.com
    10. Re:A real reason to block the site by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Then tell me, as it has been proposed as a solution to this many times, how does the rule "only edit within 10 minutes after the post and if no-one has replied yet" not fix those problems ?
      How is that significantly different from the already-existing "Preview" feature?
    11. Re:A real reason to block the site by bsartist · · Score: 1
      The "no reply" clause means you'd have to catch the typo yourself, and we already have the means to do that with the "preview" button.
      .. which we all should, but few of us actually do.
      Why would the people who ignore the "preview" button suddently start using it if the label were changed to "edit"?
      --
      Lost: Sig, white with black letters. No collar. Reward if found!
    12. Re:A real reason to block the site by leonmergen · · Score: 1

      Why would the people who ignore the "preview" button suddently start using it if the label were changed to "edit"?

      Because a lot of people actually try to post as quickly as possible to get more people to read their posts (higher position)..

      --
      - Leon Mergen
      http://www.solatis.com
  6. Technical details? by someone300 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This "article" (i.e. blog post) doesn't even mention what browser(s) this affects or how it works. What program is at fault here.. wmplayer? Or is this little dialog box *after* pressing yes to some shady ActiveX thing.

    1. Re:Technical details? by nascarguy27 · · Score: 1

      I looked at the photo on the article and I recognize the DRM acquisition box as from an asf encoded media stream. I've seen a similar box and it pops up and will usually ask to install a malicious ad program, then the user (read dumb person) clicks through like with other programs. And viola. Adware/spyware party on said dummy's computer.

      --
      Funny createSig(Witty remark, Odd reference)
      {
      return (Funny)remark + (Funny)reference;
      }
    2. Re:Technical details? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Informative

      Windows Media Player helpfully downloads license files for you, and if a malicious media file asks for something that's nastier than a license file, well...
      http://www.pandasoftware.com/about/press/viewNews. aspx?noticia=5818

    3. Re:Technical details? by Gnavpot · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Windows Media Player helpfully downloads license files for you, and if a malicious media file asks for something that's nastier than a license file, well...
      Well... what?

      I read your Panda link. It describes how the malicious files get downloaded. It does not describe how they then get executed.

      I assume that the real license files are pure data files which do not need to be executed after download (the opposite would be an incredibly stupid design decision). In that case, WMP should not have the functionality to execute a downloaded license file. So what happens?
    4. Re:Technical details? by Fred_A · · Score: 1
      user (read dumb person)
      Aren't those terms typically synonyms in IT ? Especially when applied to IE using MySpace bloggers ? :)

      And viola.
      The real surprise to me is that so many MySpace users would be interested in classical music.
      --

      May contain traces of nut.
      Made from the freshest electrons.
    5. Re:Technical details? by Danse · · Score: 2, Informative
      Windows Media Player helpfully downloads license files for you

      You can tick a checkbox in the options to tell it not to automatically download license files.
      --
      It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
    6. Re:Technical details? by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      You are right, they are pure datafiles which arn't executed. They are HTML datafiles through and they are automatically and immediatly rendered via Internet Explorer in the dialog box (It goes and uses the explorer engine, so installing a different browser won't change a thing) So technically the exploit is an IE exploit. If IE was immune to lovely active X and java and javascript and buffer overflowing JPEGs then the DRM would be secure too. But its not. Incredibly stupid design decision? Yes. But thats how their mail client works too with HTML formated messages. Only difference is in Outlook if you look, you can disable HTML messages ;) Incredibly stupid is par for the course.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    7. Re:Technical details? by Gnavpot · · Score: 1
      You are right, they are pure datafiles which arn't executed. They are HTML datafiles through and they are automatically and immediatly rendered via Internet Explorer in the dialog box
      Thank you. Sometimes it is quite annoying to see all those descriptions of attacks which does nothing to describe how downloaded content is executed. It seems that a lot of people think that this needs no explanation. Probably because they think that as soon a malicious file is downloaded on the computer, the OS is somehow automagically infected without anything executing the content of said file.
  7. As opposed to... by StikyPad · · Score: 5, Funny

    in a strange example of viral marketing gone wrong.

    Strange because things referred to as "viral" so rarely go wrong.

    1. Re:As opposed to... by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      I believe "gone wrong" is code for "got caught".

      --
      What?
  8. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Pancake+Bandit · · Score: 5, Informative

    Viral marketing is a relatively harmless marketing strategy that takes advantage of "word of mouth", using its audience to reach new audience. Consider the popular website homestarrunner.com, which has never used marketing but instead relied on its visitors to encourage others to visit. "Viral" comes from the idea that one person sees it, and shows it to several friends, who show it to several friends. This can reach a much wider audience than conventional marketing methods and cuts down on marketing costs.

  9. Think twice? by MoxFulder · · Score: 5, Funny
    ... entice MySpace users ... without disclosing a key piece of information that might make them think twice.
    These are MySpace users we're talking about. Good luck even getting 'em to think ONCE.
  10. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by mcpkaaos · · Score: 4, Funny

    Let's shorten that up a bit:

    Marketing is like rape to sex.

    Or:

    Marketing is always wrong.

    Has a nice ring to it, that last one. :)

    --
    It goes from God, to Jerry, to me.
  11. With all the clutter on there already... by thePfhitz · · Score: 5, Funny

    With all the clutter on there already, how did anybody notice in the first place??

    1. Re:With all the clutter on there already... by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      You know, I think it was more along the lines of the tech-savvy people noticing...then thinking "hey! if I don't do/say anything this could very well bring an end to the MySpace era while simultaneously screwing up the computers of the people who put up those epilepsy inducing backgrounds and widgets that are more of an eye-sore than the early Geocities days. 2 birds with 1 stone!"

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  12. Huh? MySpace IS AdWare! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I don't see a story.

  13. remember kids by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    always use protection when visiting a new friend, or even old friend, on myspace. Because you never know where those dangly parts have been.

  14. What's so particularly wrong? by mi · · Score: 4, Insightful
    in a strange example of viral marketing gone wrong

    I'd hate this practice too, if it affected me, but why is it any more wrong, than any other children-targeted marketing (like advertising action-figures in between cartoons)?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:What's so particularly wrong? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      (like advertising action-figures in between cartoons)

      The cartoon is the ad. The "ad" of which you speak is merely the phone number (to get mommy) to call, or the store to go to. Were you asleep in the meeting?

    2. Re:What's so particularly wrong? by mi · · Score: 1

      You are not really answering the question in the subject, are you?

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    3. Re:What's so particularly wrong? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      It's only 'wrong' because it is preying on the clueless. Kids cartoons or MySpace videos...no difference.

      Should the viewers have more clue? Yeah, maybe. But they don't. And won't. And there are always new ones coming along to take their place.

    4. Re:What's so particularly wrong? by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, can you name one successfull thing that isn't praying on the clueless ?

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    5. Re:What's so particularly wrong? by MirrororriM · · Score: 1
      I'd hate this practice too, if it affected me, but why is it any more wrong, than any other children-targeted marketing (like advertising action-figures in between cartoons)?

      Because the advertising you see on the TV won't embed itself within the TV without your knowledge and pop up ad after ad over the top of the show you're trying to watch (although TV execs would if they could...).

      --
      Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
    6. Re:What's so particularly wrong? by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 1

      Just out of curiosity, can you name one successfull thing that isn't praying on the clueless ?

      Linux. (although the success is debateable)

      Yes...most successful things do prey on the clueless. Just not so much and so blatently.

    7. Re:What's so particularly wrong? by kz45 · · Score: 1

      Linux. (although the success is debateable)

      Linux has a community of zealouts that market to the clueless all the time (even grandma can use ubantu).

      everything that is now popular needs some kind of marketing (grass-roots or commerical). I see no problem with it.

    8. Re:What's so particularly wrong? by 27,000 · · Score: 1

      Your yard-ape children can't accidentally hose your TV.

      --
      My problem with spontaneous human combustion is that never seems to happen to the "right" people.
  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, would it be bad if my friend, Tom... Yeah, that's it. Tom likes some commercials, the funny ones, that is.

    Now, that wouldn't mean that Tom, my friend, likes to get raped, would it?

  17. America really is growing daft by MikeRT · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's pretty clear that parents today aren't doing their jobs and policing their kids' MySpace accounts in many ways. I'd want to know where my teen was getting videos from if I were a parent. Not to spy on them, but just to let them know that their parents just want to have a general idea of what's going on in their life. As soon as I saw one of these popups, I'd demand that they take the videos off and would file a criminal complaint with the police against the spyware vendor.

    People look at me like I'm a Nazi because I seriously don't think most Americans should be enfranchised. Let's face an ugly truth. Our founding fathers were right: most people are unfit to vote. This is a perfect example why. Parents and teens that by now can't handle their own security online are generally irresponsible people, and irresponsible people make terrible voters. Problem is that for every voter who has his or her shit together, watches their kids and is a good, solid citizen, there are 5 morons who will vote like sheep. That dilutes the power of the responsible people to guide society.

    I'm personally sick of the MySpace crap. I don't know how we'd find a good criteria for mass-disenfranchising bad parents and most college-age people, but we need to find one. Society is going to hell because we let people who cannot take responsibility for themselves vote in people who won't take responsibility for themselves... and that's bad. These are the people with their fingers on the most powerful nuclear arsenal on Earth.

    Learning how spyware gets you is part of using the Internet. It's like living in a big city and actively avoiding finding out where the bad sections of town are.

    1. Re:America really is growing daft by lawpoop · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "People look at me like I'm a Nazi because I seriously don't think most Americans should be enfranchised. Let's face an ugly truth. Our founding fathers were right: most people are unfit to vote."

      The reason people look at you like you're a Nazi is because once you start with "these people aren't fit to vote, I know what's best for them", then you start feeling entitled to make other decisions for them, such as what kinds of jobs they can hold, where they can live, and whether they are allowed to reproduce. The 'slippery slope' card is one that's too often use where it's not warranted, but this is a place where it's obviously warranted, by historical precedent.

      Let me say this as clearly as I can: if you think you know better than me as to what's right in my life, fuck you. You have no place making decisions for me, or anyone else. Society really goes to hell, as in labor camps and mass exterminations, when we let right-wing ideologies like yours come into power. We've fought long and hard to get where we are today, and it makes me sick to hear you say that just because you don't like myspace. It's a friggin' website, for crying out loud!

      Futhermore, the founding fathers didn't say that most people are unfit to vote. They specfically left out particular groups based on race, ethnicity and gender -- women, blacks, Indians, etc. They did not say that most people are unfit to vote. I would bet that you know, or at least know of, women and blacks that are certainly fit to vote by your standards, just as there are women and blacks that are unfit to vote by your standards. The problem comes when someone starts thinking their standards are the ones we should use to disenfranchise voters.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    2. Re:America really is growing daft by NoGuffCheck · · Score: 1

      Obligatory simpsons quote

      Patterson: I can't believe what I'm hearing.
      Homer: Well you better turn up your hearing aid, Pops!
      Patterson: Pops? I'm only 2 years older than you.
      Homer: Do we want old-man Patterson here with his finger on the button?
      Patterson: WHAT BUTTON!? What the hell are you talking about?!
      Homer: (mocking) Wha..wha..what button? Where am I? Who took my false teeth?

      --
      serenity now!
    3. Re:America really is growing daft by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 4, Funny
      "People look at me like I'm a Nazi because I seriously don't think most Americans should be enfranchised. Let's face an ugly truth. Our founding fathers were right: most people are unfit to vote."

      The reason people look at you like you're a Nazi is because once you start with . . . .


      It could also be the the little toothbrush mustache and the swastika armband.
      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    4. Re:America really is growing daft by Buran · · Score: 1

      Let me say this as clearly as I can: if you think you know better than me as to what's right in my life, fuck you.

      Too bad that doesn't seem to be doing any good with regards to getting rid of idiot Congresscritters that don't know what their constituents want. Or just don't care.

    5. Re:America really is growing daft by Karma+Farmer · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Society really goes to hell, as in labor camps and mass exterminations, when we let right-wing ideologies like yours come into power.


      First, the concept you're looking for is "authoritarian", not "right-wing". You'll find that authoritarians come in both left-wing and right-wing varieties. The two camps never agree on the problems that need to be solved, but they always agree on the solution -- more power for them, less power for you.

      Second, YHBT YHL HAND.
    6. Re:America really is growing daft by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

      >As soon as I saw one of these popups, I'd demand that they take the videos off and would file a criminal complaint with the police against the spyware vendor.

      Your local police will get awfully busy if someone calls them every time there's a popup for a "search assistant". Better in this case to handle your own security online with software and policies.

      >Parents and teens that by now can't handle their own security online are generally irresponsible people

      Generally, perhaps, but I acknowledge exceptions. The level of knowledge needed long since passed "nontrivial" and went into "well educated", rapidly nearing "expert", and the threat vectors change every couple of years.

    7. Re:America really is growing daft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Please climb back into the elitist little hole you crawled out of and leave the unwashed masses to have the web.

    8. Re:America really is growing daft by Firehed · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Fair enough, though I largely agree with the grandparent poster. I'm very much against people thinking that they know how I should run my life, as you seem to be. But as the GP said, for every voter that's aware of the issues, there's five more who just vote like sheep, be it their political party (having no awareness of the issues or their candidate's stance on them), their friends, or - notably worse - how the candidate *looks*.

      The good news is that, to some degree, the problem is self-correcting. Those "unfit" to vote are the type that keep well away from the ballot boxes, since they're all too busy picking the next American Idol. In fact up to quite recently (quite possibly the GP post), I was trying to figure out why we didn't implement some sort of internet- or phone-based voting system. Then it hit me - the people who are too fucking lazy to either go down to the voting booths or get an absentee ballot if they can't make it are the exact type of people who will, without any question, vote like sheep. You can bet your ass that shows like American Idol, Big Brother and other call-in-/text-in-/log-in-to-vote shows wouldn't have made it to the second episode if their voters had to head to the town hall or other voting emporium to vote.

      The counterpoint to that being that while you tend to keep the dumb sheep away from the ballots, those who have some hardcore feelings about a hot-topic issue DO flock to the polls to get something passed/rejected or someone voted in. Naturally, if you can't be bothered to vote then you've got no excuse when you're not happy with the outcome, but you'll still end up with some vastly unpopular things passed when people don't feel strongly enough to get out there.

      The biggest problem is really that voting is just a popularity contest. In the last ten years or so, I've seen one candidate - ONE - who's campaign was "here's my stance on these issues, vote accordingly". Everything else has been "I'm great for pointless reasons x, y, and z" or "the other guy sucks for irrelavent reasons u, v, and w." How completely worthless. It would be one thing if you didn't agree with any of the candidates up for election, but it's something else when you're forced to go in blind because their multimillion dollar campaigning told you absolutely nothing.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    9. Re:America really is growing daft by vux984 · · Score: 1
      The reason people look at you like you're a Nazi is because once you start with "these people aren't fit to vote, I know what's best for them", then you start feeling entitled to make other decisions for them, such as what kinds of jobs they can hold, where they can live, and whether they are allowed to reproduce. The 'slippery slope' card is one that's too often use where it's not warranted, but this is a place where it's obviously warranted, by historical precedent.

      So what if he said some people aren't fit to drive...? Does that imply he's on a slippery slope leading to where he claims knows what's best for them, what kind of jobs they can hold, where they can live, whether they can reproduce?

      Or does it just mean that he, like most people, think that driving is serious enough that people doing it ought to at least pass some sort of basic competency test?

      We approve of a system that has a minor obstacle designed to try and keep inexperienced total idiots from driving their cars, but we let these same twits drive the country?

      Frankly I agree with him. I also however see NO equitable method of determining who is and is not competent to vote, and thus side with the status quo where everyone can vote, no matter how ignorant and idiotic they might be...

      Oh noes, I'm afraid of gays, terr'ists, and think flag burning laws is the most important issue for congress...

      I think killing is wrong, God said so! But if we call a guy a terr'ist instead of a criminal then its ok to drop bombs on his house to kill him (and anyone near him), and then celebrate by parading around with his corpse on display. That's wicked cool not sick and demented. Its not murder. Its not even morally wrong, 'cuz we're at WAR see? ...

      Killings ok if we're at WAR because we're defending our FREEDOMS!! We're defending them by pre-emptively killing anyone we're afraid will take them away. Even if it turns out they can't.

      Our FREEDOMS are so important that we should give them up so the gubmint can more effectively defend them from the terr'ists. That's just logcal; and if you says diff'rent yur probly a terr'ist and hates 'merica.

      Next time someone bitches the gubmint is taking away freedoms, I'll noes he's just trying to to help the terr'ists so Ima set bombs off in his house to kill him 'cuz its ok to kill terr'ists 'cuz we're at war with them! I saw so on the TV.

      Jesus is love and he hates terrists and wants us to kill them where they live so they can't get us were we live.

      Ima 'maercan hero!!


      But yeah... if I could think of a way to deny idiots like that the vote. I would. There should be some sort of level of critical thinking that must be achieved and demonstrated before you get to decide what the country does.

    10. Re:America really is growing daft by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      Futhermore, the founding fathers didn't say that most people are unfit to vote.

      I admit it has been quite some time since I studied American history in any depth, but I do think there's something to saying they did; some of them, at least. My recollection is that was the reason they created the whole electoral college, which, at the time, was under NO obligation to vote for the person their state (or whatever) voted for. I think the founders hoped that some day everybody would be fit to vote--and who knows if they would believe everybody was today--but back in their time... maybe it's not too far off base.

      I suppose the harranging is over the word "most." I'm not sure it was ever used, but being that blacks and women were banned from voting, and the electoral college was set up at least in part (hopefully we can both agree to that!) to prevent the people who COULD vote (white males) from making "mistakes," it seems like they were definitely concerned about a majority of people. Again, some of them.

    11. Re:America really is growing daft by NewToNix · · Score: 1

      The real problem is that most people are unfit to vote, but ALL people are unfit to decide who is fit to vote, and who isn't.

      Makes it tough to have a real good electorate...

    12. Re:America really is growing daft by Das+Modell · · Score: 1
      Society really goes to hell, as in labor camps and mass exterminations, when we let right-wing ideologies like yours come into power.

      Is that what ring-wing ideologies endorse? I don't remember seeing any politicians or officials talk about labor camps and mass exterminations in Western countries (and don't even think about bringing up Hitler, because I'm referring to the 21st century). Left-wing ideologies are far more likely to destroy a country, and that's actually what they're presently doing in Europe.
    13. Re:America really is growing daft by db32 · · Score: 1

      There is a VERY VERY simple solution...that may not work forever, but will at least get us on the right track. To vote...you go into the poll booth...and pass the citizenship test...then you are allowed to cast your vote. Go look at the statistics concerning the number of americans that cannot pass the test that is required of foreigners to become citizens. Pretty scary....and a little sad considering most of it is below high school level stuff.

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    14. Re:America really is growing daft by spx · · Score: 1

      The way you posted that first paragraph reminds me that I should tell my kids (when older), where did you get that stray animal? O no, not from there, DONT BRING FLEAS IN MY HOUSE. :)

    15. Re:America really is growing daft by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      I think it is the large corporations who pay the congressperson's campaigns, and put them on the board of directors, who get their agendas legislated.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    16. Re:America really is growing daft by kthejoker · · Score: 1

      They also left out people under 21 and people who didn't own property. So let's see:

      White.
      Male.
      21.
      Own Property (ie white-collar or aristocracy.)

      Sounds pretty limiting to me. And of course, there was that whole electoral college - that idea wasn't just the popular vote translated to faithful elector formality that it is today. The Founding Fathers expected the electors to be lifelong appointments by states, and that those electors would all sit around in their smoking rooms and rich plantations and pick out who the next President of the United States would be, in perpetuity, forever.

      So what really happened in our first Presidential election? Well, each state was doled out some electoral votes based on population. North Carolina and Rhode Island hadn't ratified the Constitution, so they didn't get any electors, and amazingly, New York, despite having 8 electors (making them the 2nd most powerful state, much like today), didn't actually pick any people to be electors, and didn't participate.

      Of the 10 states that did actually participate, *only 4* used any sort of popular vote to determine how their electors would ask. The others simply sent in delegates they thought would represent their state interests - in that case, it was more or less a given that Washington would be selected President. And of course he was.

      The same held true in Washington's relection in 1792, but when he declined to serve a 3rd term in 1796, the whole system went to pot. Of the 16 states who had electors that year, only 6 states allowed popular votes to determine how the electors would vote, with 3 more splitting their electors between a popular vote and the state legislature. The other 7 states relied entirely on their state legislatures to provide their electors (and their votes!)

      And then, with the major snafu of 1800 with Burr and Jefferson, Congress ratified the 12th Amendment to guarantee popular voting for all Americans - FOR VICE-PRESIDENT. The President was still subject to the electoral college.

      Does that sound like maybe our Founding Fathers thought most uneducated men and women weren't fit to vote? That in fact that only people fit to vote were the same people fit to be elected? And that until the Civil War, South Carolina continued to let their state legislature cast their vote for President? And that since then, several states have still done so or threatened to do so (see Florida, 2000)?

      Seriously, don't stick your foot in your mouth when you're fighting back against authoritarian jerks. It was enough to say he has no right to dictate your life, but to suggest that our Founding Fathers weren't elitist aristocrats with an exclusionary agenda is wrongheaded.

    17. Re:America really is growing daft by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "So what if he said some people aren't fit to drive...?"

      Different story. Driving is not a civil liberty or political freedom.

      To tell you the truth, I agree with him also. I think a lot of people really don't understand the issues or what they are voting on. The problem is -- and this is a *very serious*, *very real* problem -- if you start a system where you say most people are idiots and shouldn't be allowed to vote, eventually some of those idiots will come into power. And then you will soon find that somehow *you* meet the criteria for those not eligible to vote.

      So anyone who holds the 'most people are idiots' philosophy is not elibigle to vote, in my book, because they have not thought things through to the obvious consequences.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    18. Re:America really is growing daft by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      "Sounds pretty limiting to me."

      I didn't say it wasn't limited. I just said it wasn't based on any kind of intellectual competency test , but rather race, gender, ethnicity, and also wealth and age, as you pointed out. I'm certain there were a few wealthy, white, landowning, 21+ idiots, but they were allowed to vote.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    19. Re:America really is growing daft by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      You are correct. I made a biased statement.

      What does "YHBT YHL HAND" mean?

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    20. Re:America really is growing daft by kthejoker · · Score: 1

      While there may have been a few, it was clearly the Founding Father's intentions and beliefs that white male landowners were at least educated in the same general philosophy of life - that they would basically all know what was good for them, and that the exact same thing is good for every white male landowner (more or less.) So they may be "idiots" in some pure intellectual sense, but they had enough good financial sense to get wealthy and maintain property, which was the only kind of "intellect" our Founding Fathers seemed to care about.

      And actually, what was great/poor about this limiting system was that America had finally done away with class values - you didn't have to be born into nobility to have a vote, but you DID have to have good financial sense (in order to get wealthy enough to have a vote.) But they made the mistake in letting primogeniture rule the school - so within 3 generations, you had a lazy, aristrocratic gentry created out of a system built on prosperity and hard work.

    21. Re:America really is growing daft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    22. Re:America really is growing daft by vux984 · · Score: 1

      So anyone who holds the 'most people are idiots' philosophy is not elibigle to vote, in my book, because they have not thought things through to the obvious consequences.

      I hold that philosophy, yet, like I said, I also advocate the status quo because I don't beleive there is any way to separate the people who should from those shouldn't that is equitable, safe from abuse, and I suppose safe from the inversion of priviledge you proposed.

      Indeed the situation you propose is precisely what the incumbent political structure would love to see happen.

    23. Re:America really is growing daft by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The 'slippery slope' card is one that's too often use where it's not warranted, but this is a place where it's obviously warranted, by historical precedent.
      The fact that you need to defend this suggests it is perhaps not so obviously warranted here.
    24. Re:America really is growing daft by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 1

      Those "unfit" to vote are the type that keep well away from the ballot boxes, since they're all too busy picking the next American Idol.

      False; voting correlates better with membership in a special interest group than with "fitness to vote." (Which is what, exactly? Knowledge of the issues? Willingness to take advantage of everyone else?) To show why this is the case, let's look at a hypothetical example: a proposal to spend $50 million on a bridge to nowhere, paid for by a $0.50 tax on each of 100 million citizens. The contractor will make some amount of profit, let's say 10% ($5 million). In an "ideal" (100% voting) situation, this would probably get shot down easily, as 99.999% of the citizens would probably vote against the proposal ($0.50 tax for no apparent benefit). However, the cost of just showing up at the poles is probably more than $0.50 (time, gas, lost opportunities), so each citizen would actually lose out by showing up to vote -- the one exception being the contractor (the special interest), who has $5 million worth of incentive to show up.

      The actual cost of showing up is not insignificant. I would estimate that the time alone -- just to show up to vote, not including previous research on the issues and candidates -- is probably worth at least $5 to $10 to most individuals. (The minimum would be their pay at work during that time; their remaining leisure time is worth more to them than what they can make at work, or they would have spent that time working instead.) The cost of the special-interest project to each individual taxpayer would have to be greater than the cost of showing up to make it worthwhile, and few issues actually have that much impact per person. Note that I'm not supporting special-interest projects here; quite the contrary. However, it is disingenius for an individual to spend (the equivilent of) $5 or more voting to protect against a theft of $0.50 for yet another useless expenditure.

      --
      "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
  18. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful
    who moderates this crap up. Given the average around here of finding consensual sex, I would think that many would be worried about ending up with someone, perhaps under statuatory conditions or otherwise, that would charge rape.

    I guess people are confortable living a life of misery for something that they didn't even do. It is one thing to be falsely charged of a crime, it is another to be given an effective death sentence.

  19. a href's by L7_ · · Score: 1

    this just smacks of 'not controlled here' syndrome. people want to link other people's stuff, and they do, but the content (and bandwidth!) owners don't guarantee that what they link when they create thier page is what is going to remain there.

    basically, anchor refer tags do not always point to what they are supposed to. myspace is bringing back to the forefront lots of little details/problems from the late nineties from 'user' made websites, mostly geocities. it is reminiscent of when someone would like to embed an image fron your domain onto thier page and you would change it to a goatse picture.. and thier page would be showing what you controlled (and then they would bitch, but thats besides the point).

    when you embed (and link: remember that 'i am viewing gay porn IE killer javascript awhile back?!) content from other providers, you should trust them not to change it (and let them know you are doing it!).

    1. Re:a href's by buckyboy314 · · Score: 0

      Actually, this is kinda off-topic, but it would be nice if http could checksum something before retrieving it to make sure everything was kosher before spending bandwidth...

  20. Holy smokes by sloths · · Score: 3, Informative

    My stepbrother installed that Zango stuff on my computer. I uninstalled it, and the next day I found it installed again. So I used the hosts file to redirect zango.com to zombo.com

    Problem solved.

    --
    really 867993
    Karma schkarma
    1. Re:Holy smokes by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Funny

      Wow, you really CAN do anything at Zombo.com!

    2. Re:Holy smokes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      HAHAHAHAHAHA

      I'll post as AC in case I get mod points. What kind of + mod would you like? Funny doesn't grant karma.

  21. Isn't it worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Are we really going to let a little adware get between me and my 15,000 underage girlfriends?

    1. Re:Isn't it worth it? by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are we really going to let a little adware get between me and my 15,000 underage girlfriends?

      FYI, most of them are actually guys. Older guys. With all kinds of cooties.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    2. Re:Isn't it worth it? by shoptroll · · Score: 1

      Don't forget a few are probably carrying badges from your favorite branches of law-enforcement: local, state and FBI

      --
      Insert Sig Here
    3. Re:Isn't it worth it? by Wormbrain · · Score: 1

      Do a search on Myspace, not for anyone under 18, but for anyone under 5 feet tall. (the site doesn't let you search for anyone under 18) You'll plainly see that there are hundreds of underage profiles on Myspace. Some parents even create and put up profiles of their little kids (toddlers and infants). Many of these profiles aren't set to "private" either. It's hard to find an actual "little person" who is 18+ using the Myspace search, because the site is so riddled with the profiles of ObsessiveMathsFreak's underage girlfriends.

      --
      http://wormbrain.com/
  22. Myspace by bostonsoxfan · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is darwinism. If we stop putting out patches and programs to kill adware/spyware only the strong will survive. Granted reformatting your computer isn't that difficult still it takes them off the internet. People with common sense will realize that I shouldn't download something that just pops up. Somebody should write a pamphlet about it and distribute it with new computers. Honestly you have to be a fool to not use google video for your myspace videos. They have the best servers and maybe not the greatest variety but it is a name you can trust. I will admit I have a myspace profile, but I don't put crap in it. I use it to make plans on occasion and meet up with people I have lost touch with. Myspace needs to stop allowing the video codes, or only allow it from certain servers. That would be the quickest solution. Back to darwinism download spyware once, shame on you, download spyware twice shame on me. Thats what I think about that. Its actually pretty clever. Myspace videos are pretty insiduous, so its cheap advertising. Quite a good plan.

    1. Re:Myspace by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the problem with this idea is that some spyware can get on your computer without any user-knowledge or cooperation. IE has some major security holes, and the majority of people use it. So when these people hit a link that looks like a real page when they search for something on google, they can get infected insanely fast. Hopefully, more secure browsers will fix this.

  23. TreasureTrooper by puzzled · · Score: 1


      Let me put in a shout for TreasureTrooper - no adware, but mobs of dorks are spamming YouTube video comment streams on their behalf ... viral marketing at that level needs to be excised just like any other unnatural growth.

    --
    I am very easy to get along with, but I don't have time to waste being nice to people who are being stupid. -Theo
  24. adware scanner by a_greer2005 · · Score: 1

    I know that one can build a gateway box to scan and remove viruses from internet traffic before it hits the lan, but can the same thing be done with spyware thus making it a little bit safer to not block myspace and other such sites that are reaching levels of popularity that make them impossible to block in some enviornments with office politics pressure and all?

  25. ZEfrank by jollyroger1210 · · Score: 0

    Zefrank is contributing with his "ugly myspace" competition!

    --
    Purple, because ice cream has no bones.
  26. All good marketing is viral by Zeinfeld · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Viral marketting is just a dotbomb buzzword. The idea behind it predates the Internet, predates print in fact. This is not viral marketting, its simply a conduit for malware.

    The same problem appeared on blogger a year back. I don't know if they ever got the problem under control (I learned to stop using the next blog button), but it was a real pain.

    There are two problems here, first MySpace should get a clue and eradicate the infestations. Second IE should have taken steps against forced downloads back in 1998 when it was only realplayer and flash that kept asking if they could install fifty times a day. At least that was only a consequence of the pages having the active content rather than a deliberate attack to put the malware on the machine.

    The reason I use Windows is precisely because you don't notice this sort of stuff if you spend your time using Firefox. I want to know the next attack while it is going on.

    As an absolute rule it should never be possible for active content running in a user application to crap on the operating system internals. It should never be possible for any program to install itself in a way that is intended to prevent removal.

    Windows is trying to introduce this separation but running a Windows box without access to administrator or super user privs is pretty miserable. And to an attacker super user is administrator in any case.

    --
    Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
    Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
    1. Re:All good marketing is viral by HMC+CS+Major · · Score: 1

      MySpace allows FAR TOO MUCH variety in the types of content it allows, and is FAR TOO LAX in the way it allows most user actions to be performed. First, allowing any user to post virtually any type of file is a recipe for disaster. It works great for other sites that want to capitalize (for example, sites that want to post videos on myspace, but not so great when that content is something you don't want to see. They don't filter content well (regular expressions to remove things like the '#' character, for example, will stop very few attacks), and the number of scripted bulletins / posts / comments (situations where you visit a page, and that page uses javascript to publish a link back to itself to all of your friends) should be proof positive that unauthenticated POSTing works great for the first million users, but breaks when you get popular. Slashdot learned all of these lessons years ago - once you get popular, the trolls will find you, and then your users will regret it.

    2. Re:All good marketing is viral by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      running a Windows box without access to administrator or super user privs is pretty miserable.

      No it isn't. Your administrator just needs to have a clue. Actually, you only need one good admin in order to have many people run as "Limited User". Making an older (or badly behaved) program run correctly on Winodws as Limited is as trivial as giving the rights to the folders the application wants to write to and giving the rights to the registry keys that the application wants to write to. (Often it's an implementation error: the app just wants to read them, but they open the key as R/W)

      Up until now, I have only found one single application that I didn't manage to run under Limited User and that was a game called "Children of The Nile". I still do not know what exactly it needs to run, so that I can grant it rights.

      The only caveat with all this is that Windows XP *Home* removed the "Security Tab". Worst decision ever. You still can change the ACLs of files with the command line utility called "cacls.exe". There is also a way to reactivate the functionality by installing some powertool, but alas, I forgot again where you can download it.

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    3. Re:All good marketing is viral by abandonment · · Score: 1

      agreed - i have hit several profiles on myspace recently that 'claim' to be one thing (a band site, whatever) and end up doing who-knows-what and end up sending you off to some other site, for whatever reason...disabling javascript when visiting the site is almost required and definitely recommended...

      unfortunately the site is WAAAY to popular for it's own good now, and the maintainers are way over their heads as far as being able to handle these 'outbreaks' - if they even care in the first place.

    4. Re:All good marketing is viral by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No it isn't. Your administrator just needs to have a clue. Actually, you only need one good admin in order to have many people run as "Limited User". Making an older (or badly behaved) program run correctly on Winodws as Limited is as trivial as giving the rights to the folders the application wants to write to and giving the rights to the registry keys that the application wants to write to. (Often it's an implementation error: the app just wants to read them, but they open the key as R/W)

      Funny, when I asked a group of Windows experts about exactly this, the answer was "it can't be done". "Impossible". "The drive you don't want the hard drive to have access to needs to be disconnected".

      And that was just to install a couple of games on my work PC, without risk of them screwing up the system.

    5. Re:All good marketing is viral by jawtheshark · · Score: 1

      Your words:
      Funny, when I asked a group of Windows experts about exactly this, the answer was "it can't be done". "Impossible". "

      My words:
      Your administrator just needs to have a clue.

      Do I need to draw a picture?

      --
      Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
    6. Re:All good marketing is viral by jacksonj04 · · Score: 1

      On the bright side, people who use MySpace are dense enough to buy a Vista-enabled PC when it comes because "It's got see-through windows!". Vista (From what I've seen in the betas/ctps) has a fairly secure default user. The problem is self-healing, providing MSFT don't slacken the security layer before release.

      --
      How many people can read hex if only you and dead people can read hex?
    7. Re:All good marketing is viral by SillyNickName4me · · Score: 1

      No it isn't. Your administrator just needs to have a clue. Actually, you only need one good admin in order to have many people run as "Limited User".

      Maybe this would be a good argument if Microsoft was offering free administrators to home users, but it seems they are not. The typical home user doesn't and never will have a cluefull administrator around, regardless, those are by far the largest number of Windows installs.

      In other words, while in theory true, your statement is absolutely not helpfull in the real world.

      Making an older (or badly behaved) program run correctly on Winodws as Limited is as trivial as giving the rights to the folders the application wants to write to and giving the rights to the registry keys that the application wants to write to. (Often it's an implementation error: the app just wants to read them, but they open the key as R/W)

      If it is an implementation error then it needs to be fixed by the developer, nothing the administrator can do there, and claiming it is trivially simple is just plain wrong. Unless you have the source and can fix the implementation, those are IMPOSSIBLE to fix. It is possible to create a workaround by giving additional but unneeded rights to such an application.

      Up until now, I have only found one single application that I didn't manage to run under Limited User and that was a game called "Children of The Nile". I still do not know what exactly it needs to run, so that I can grant it rights.

      Ah, and you somehow expect the typical home user to do this?

      The only caveat with all this is that Windows XP *Home* removed the "Security Tab". Worst decision ever. You still can change the ACLs of files with the command line utility called "cacls.exe". There is also a way to reactivate the functionality by installing some powertool, but alas, I forgot again where you can download it.

      No the only caveat is that while technically true, this kind of idea is simply not ever going to work in the real world at all. Any system that counts on substantial technical knowledge for being kept secure is not going to be secure in the hands of the public.

      (and just before you mention it, no, OSX and Linux in themselves don't solve this problem either)

    8. Re:All good marketing is viral by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1
      "Viral marketting is just a dotbomb buzzword. The idea behind it predates the Internet, predates print in fact. This is not viral marketting, its simply a conduit for malware."

      Bzzzt! Wrong! Viral marketing refers to any marketing tactic that is spread by word of mouth from person to person (hence the "viral"). Yes, the tactics had begun to emerge pre-internet, however the advertising industry (which I work in) didn't officially recognize these tactics as its own form of marketing strategy until recently. Its really just a classification of the results of the campaign since you can't really "create" a viral piece, rather something GOES viral when enough people like it that they spread it around.

      Which brings me to my next point where the great grandparent says:

      "Viral is to marketing like rape is to sex, it's always wrong."

      You sir are ignorant. The only way something goes viral is if the creative is interesting and likeable enough to make people WANT to pass it on. Nothing is being forced on anybody thus blowing your analogy completely out of the water. Worst. Comparison. Ever.

      --
      Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
  27. MySpace is a lost cause by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    When News Corp bought MySpace back in '05 I expected membership would begin to drop like a stone, as the "anti-establishment", Bush-hating, Indie-music loving, media-toppling population of MySpacers fled on to "the next big thing".

    Sure enough, dozens of "Web 2.0" MySpace clones appeared, offering better features and the same "fight for the little guy" mentality that MySpace had become famous for. I expected those MySpacers would be off in no time. Being that I'm a tad too old (26) for those "wacky kids", I diverted my attention and awaited the sound bite that "the MySpace phenomena was over".

    A year later, I'm still waiting. Meanwhile, the juaggurnaut that is MySpace continues to grow like WalMart on crack, and other News Corp properties (FX, Fox, Fox News) have jumped on the bandwagon. Call me naive, but I expected the "corporate parent" to stay well hidden from MySpace for fear of losing their main demo (Q: what are you rebelling against? A: what do you got?). Instead the opposite has happened: MySpace and fox passed the "sell out" threshold months ago, and millions more have poured onto MySpace as a result (I find myself meeting people well into their 30's and 40's with freaking MySpace accounts these days!).

    So, the simple answer here in regards to the recent scam-ware MySpace epidemic is: duh. My opinion of those "60 million" antidisetablishmentarianist (take THAT grammar nazis) hit rock bottom awhile ago.

    So why do I get so fired up about a website I never used in the first place? Because I give people too much credit, that's why. I was first exposed to MySpace by searching technorati and ending up in "the blogs". Believe it or not, not ALL MySpacers are completely illiterate retards. A few made excellent points regarding DRM, media and political collusions, and the evils of Fox News. But when all of this "dissent" can be bought up by "the enemy" in 5 minutes, and NO ONE EVEN CARES, it simply blows my mind.

    But then I admit to myself that I still use Google, and therefore, am an ugly stinking hypocrite according to my own psuedo-morality.

    In the immortal words of Homer Simpson: D'oh.

    1. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by Ohreally_factor · · Score: 1

      Points for the Brando quote.

      --
      It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
    2. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny
      My opinion of those "60 million" antidisetablishmentarianist (take THAT grammar nazis) hit rock bottom awhile ago.


      antidisestablishmentarianists

      you: 0
      grammar nazis: 1
    3. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by mcrbids · · Score: 1

      A year later, I'm still waiting. Meanwhile, the juaggurnaut that is MySpace continues to grow like WalMart on crack, and other News Corp properties (FX, Fox, Fox News) have jumped on the bandwagon. Call me naive, but I expected the "corporate parent" to stay well hidden from MySpace for fear of losing their main demo (Q: what are you rebelling against? A: what do you got?). Instead the opposite has happened: MySpace and fox passed the "sell out" threshold months ago, and millions more have poured onto MySpace as a result (I find myself meeting people well into their 30's and 40's with freaking MySpace accounts these days!).

      Congratulations! You totally missed the !@#@! point of MySpace. See, the big deal in MySpace is getting together a group of F-R-I-E-N-D-S and communicating with them. It's not about some "counter-culture", it's about sharing jokes, leaving posts, and posting pictures to people who give a damn.

      Today, I got a MySpace message from a gal I knew in high school. Turns out she's putting together a 15 year reunion. It's an odd year, so kinda low key. I wouldn't have gotten it, except that I spent an hour or two one day putzing on MySpace to put together my account. And I'm already glad I did.

      That said, MySpace is poised to become a sweltering cesspool of security nightmares. I doubt it will last more than 3 years as a relevant force - even though it's cool - because of the tidal wave of spyware, viruses, trojans, and cross-site scripting attacks that are about to beset it.

      Sad, really - as soon as something cool gets put together, others feel the need to rip it apart...

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    4. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      There are many, many ways to keep in contact with F-R-I-E-N-D-S which do not require one of the largest media conglomerates in the world. Like I already said, I understand you don't care, I understand you don't see a threat. That's exactly why I'm so nervous about it.

    5. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by MadMoses · · Score: 1

      You see MySpace as a threat? I didn't read that in your parent post. Care to elaborate?

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    6. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      You see MySpace as a threat? I didn't read that in your parent post. Care to elaborate?

      Well, since you asked so nicely, sure. Ok everyone, tinfoil hats on...

      Turn on your TV. If you're like me, you probably have well over 100 channels available to you. As such, you would probably mock any talk of "conspiracy" as absolutely silly; after all, who could control all those channels? But take a closer look. How many of those channels are owned by News Corp, Warner Bros, Disney or Viacom? Why, almost all of them. Odd.

      So what? I love Futurama (FOX) and thought The Matrix (WB) was a great movie. What does it matter if they happen to be owned by super-national mega corps? After all, TV shows and movies are very expensive to produce, and they require massive amounts of capital and risk.

      After all, we still have newspapers and magazines, right? After all, even if *everything* on TV was total bullshit, the truth would still get out. In fact, I've got my copy of "Wired" right here with me now. But wait a minute- take a closer look at some of your favorite publications and you will see that a shocking percentage tie back to one of those aforementioned parent companies.

      Well, so what? I'll listen to radio instead. After all, some doofy talk radio host is far too irrelelvant to be part of this "conspiracy", right? Wrong.

      The way I see it, the Internet is probably the last refuge for "truth" in the world today. Of course, that is not to say that everything on the Internet is true, far from it. But among the massive amounts of misinformation out here, I have been able to find a few truly independent sources that *I* feel are trustworthy, and most importantly, free of any specific political/business agenda. Not even slashdot is immune; is it any wonder that this fourm owned by the OSTG (open-source technology group) is home to so many GNU/Linux fans?

      News corp is not alone is wanting a piece of this pie, Viacom and others have been eyeing the "online social network" phenomena for awhile now. But with the Internet, there is NO legitimate barrier to entry. Any bobo with $20 can start a "branded" website, or launch a free blog (+1 BILLION hits on Google!) in a matter of minutes. When a mega corp comes in spending HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of dollars for a WEBSITE, the agenda is clear: they wish to "grow the brand" and "stay in touch" with their consumer base. Rather than attempt genuine, organic growth, they prefer to buy the most popular destinations. After all, writing a check is a lot easier (especially when using other people's money).

      These mega corps already control TV, print, and radio, and they are buying more and more of the Internet everyday. First they profit from the creation of this media, then profit from the first-run distribution of the media (movies, premium tv), they profit from advertising as the media is offered "freely", and then finally profit yet again as you discuss this same media with your friends on the web. Lest we forget, these are the real puppetmasters behind the MPAA, RIAA and all of the DRM-esque nonesense we love to berate here on slashdot.

      Now, in case your crack-pot-o-meter is already in the red, I love many, many "properties" (tv shows, movies, radio shows, publications, etc) controlled by these parent corps. Not *everything* they do is bad. However, without *genuine compeition*, collusion and corruption become the norm. What do I mean by this? I'll say it like this: why is it Lou Dobbs and Bill O'Reilly both lead with the same "major stories" every night, and voice the same "issues" and "positions" again and again as

    7. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      I would give this a (+6 funny) if it were up to me. ;)

    8. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by MadMoses · · Score: 1

      Ok, I see where you're coming from, and I agree that the mega media corporations are a problem. I'd rather have a choice between lots of different options than having to rely on the main-stream stuff of the megacorps. I also agree that it is very bad that so many news outlets are controlled by the same megacorps, a power that is already abused.

      But I don't see the big problem with MySpace, i.e. with MySpace being a threat. Of course, I'd rather like it to be independant and not controlled by a big media corporation. Of course, I'd like to see many more unknown independant bands featured on the front page instead of those who already have a major deal. But the main purpose of the site is still social networking, with content from ordinary people and small bands for ordinary people. And it still works for that purpose. I still find old buddies I've lost contact with for a while and I still get in contact with indie artists. As long as they don't censor anything (e.g. if you can't blog about how the latest product of parent company sucked), I don't see the threat.

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    9. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by Zaphod2016 · · Score: 1

      As long as they don't censor anything (e.g. if you can't blog about how the latest product of parent company sucked), I don't see the threat.

      Threat: they *could* censor.

      Bigger threat: are you sure they don't already?

    10. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by MadMoses · · Score: 1

      Threat: they *could* censor.

      Bigger threat: are you sure they don't already?


      But that is the theoretical "threat" of every website that you don't control yourself. If there is evidence that they censor, I would be on your side, but I haven't heard of any. As it stands now, I would be more concerned about "censorship" on /. (based on what I read about down-modding by people with unlimited mod-points) than on MySpace.

      A healthy dose of alertness is always good, but calling a threat without evidence is uncalled for.

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    11. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by MadMoses · · Score: 1

      Heh. That search even gets you to a group on MySpace where they talk about MySpace censorship. But thanks, I'll take a look at the various accusations later, there's a lot to dig through.

      --

      Do not be alarmed. This is only a test.
    12. Re:MySpace is a lost cause by 2Y9D57 · · Score: 1

      It's official: Netcraft confirms - MySpace is dying

  28. hmmm... by Connie_Lingus · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...and I thought that myspace was itself a virus...can a virus infect a virus?

    --
    never bring a twinkie to a food fight.
    1. Re:hmmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      can a virus infect a virus?

      Q. Why won't the AIDS virus infect Scientologists?
      A. Professional courtesy.

    2. Re:hmmm... by collectivescott · · Score: 1

      I don't think so, but viruses infect bacteria all the time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bacteriophage

      Given that myspace has found itself infected, I think we must consider it to be more of a bacterial plague than a viral one.

  29. So glad... by Bruitist · · Score: 1

    There's times when I'm actually glad that it's too much hassle to get the latest version of flash for my Linux. It means I don't have to look at stupid shit on people's MySpace pages...

    1. Re:So glad... by Deviant+Q · · Score: 1
      It means I don't have to look at stupid shit, i.e. people's MySpace pages...


      Fixed that for ya...
      --
      "May the days be aimless. Let the seasons drift. Do not advance the action according to a plan."
    2. Re:So glad... by Bruitist · · Score: 1

      Po-tay-toe, Po-taa-toe... Since when did people have anything other than retarded videos/flash crap on their pages? God forbod you might actually want to know someone's name...

  30. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by nacturation · · Score: 4, Funny

    I mean, common, evil... everybody's doing it!

    Here we can see a fine example of the tragedy of the commons.

    --
    Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
  31. Terrible Article, Dead wrong by grokblah · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Someone has obviously written this article as a veiled attack on MySpace. I don't really have an opinion on MySpace, but the fact is, ANYONE can post an tag to show a video on their profile.

    The person (author of the article?) got a video link to a video from Zango which was DRM'd. The DRM is what makes your Windows Media Player popup that window. The file's DRM tells the Windows Media Player what URL to pull up. Anyways, all this person did was post a DRM'd video.

    What a stupid article. It's all FUD to me.

    1. Re:Terrible Article, Dead wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you rtfa? The guy ends by saying it's most certainly a violation of myspace's terms of service, and seems to be written with the feeling that myspace just doesn't know that it's going on, and if it did, it would not allow it.

    2. Re:Terrible Article, Dead wrong by humankind · · Score: 1

      Wrong. Embed tags need to be approved by Myspace. They don't get posted immediately.

    3. Re:Terrible Article, Dead wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Embed tags place on a profile by the myspace user do not have to be approved by myspace and are posted immediately. The same goes for bulletins and messages. The -only- place where approval is required for embed tags is for profile and picture comments. The approval is given by the myspace user.

  32. I don't get it? by electronerdz · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I visited these profiles, and didn't get the pop-up??? Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8.0.4) Gecko/20060508 Firefox/1.5.0.4

    --
    Kernel Krunch - Part of a Complete OS
    1. Re:I don't get it? by strider44 · · Score: 1

      Poor guy, you have to be using Windows with Windows Media Player to get the popup. You should convert your computer to Windows immediately.

  33. Excuse, not a real reason by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    This could happen to any place that allows uploaded video, and probably will happen before too long.

    1. Re:Excuse, not a real reason by creepynut · · Score: 1

      True, but it has happened to Myspace. You can't just go trivially blocking websites, unless you're overly anal about internet access, as I'm sure is the case in many High schools and lower. Of course, if this is the case, chances are it's blocked already.

    2. Re:Excuse, not a real reason by Gothic_Walrus · · Score: 1

      This could happen to any place that allows uploaded video, and probably will happen before too long.

      No it couldn't. Because of how open the MySpace profiles are, you could put most any video file imaginable on your profile, without the site modifying it in any way.

      What about sites like YouTube where the video is reencoded on the site's servers? There's no possible way that the infected codec would carry over once the video is converted to the .FLV format that those sites use.

      --
      Goo goo g'joob.
  34. Gone Wrong, Indeed by ewhac · · Score: 2, Insightful
    "Viral marketing gone wrong?" Sounds like it's doing exactly what it was designed and intended to do.

    Schwab

    1. Re:Gone Wrong, Indeed by abb3w · · Score: 1

      "Viral marketing gone wrong?" Sounds like it's doing exactly what it was designed and intended to do.

      I believe that "wrong" is intended in a moral sense, not a functional sense. English is such a fuzzy language....

      --
      //Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
  35. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He probably just likes to watch.

  36. the world is just by RWarrior(fobw) · · Score: 1

    and we do not condone vigilantie justice, like hunting these bastards down and ripping their legs off and beating them with them ... why?

    --
    Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
  37. That's funny... by NineNine · · Score: 1

    That's funny.... I use Windows and I dont' worry about any of that, either.

    1. Re:That's funny... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you should.

      Sincerely,
      theguyusingyourcomputer

      P.S. p00nz0r3d

  38. wmplayer alternatives? by rsilvergun · · Score: 2, Informative

    I've been using vlc, but it's plugin crashes firefox pretty consistently. So what else can you use (that isn't just a front end to the same codecs wmplayer uses)?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:wmplayer alternatives? by novus+ordo · · Score: 1

      I use mplayer-plugin on my nix box. Don't think they have a windows port though.

      --
      "You're everywhere. You're omnivorous."
  39. Don't worry, MySpace is doomed by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 1
    Of course, everything is doomed, eventually*.

    * Insert your value for eventually to see if doomed applies to you.

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  40. off topic much? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    seriously, what the fuck are you talking about?

  41. your overconfidence is your weakness by tetromino · · Score: 2, Informative

    fyi, pretty much every Linux media library is a frequent subject of security advisories. Ffmpeg, mplayer, xine-lib, vlc, mad... Not all distros are diligent in fixing these issues and removing vulnerable versions. Gentoo in my experience is pretty fast, but some others are too lax. Chances are, there is a sploit for at least one multimedia application you use. And if someone wants to pwn you, all they need to do is know what version of what media player you use, and then have you open a special video file. Oh, you think that nobody knows what media player you use? Are you sure that you've never told a Linux n00b in a forum what media player you prefer? Are you sure you've never commented on a bug report in a publically accessible bugzilla? Or asked for advice on irc or a mailing list? Or mentioned in your blog that that you've just compiled that sweet beta version of libFoo-3.14?

    Remember, paranoia is a survival trait, no matter what your OS.

    1. Re:your overconfidence is your weakness by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      Wow, so a security/video expert could spend hours fiddling around with a custom video link to send me and it might pwn my computer. And that's a security threat? Dude, it'd be easier for him to get on a plane with a gun and just come shoot me. Paranoia might be a survival trait, but I'll never e able to reach your level.

      --
      Changa hates change.
    2. Re:your overconfidence is your weakness by marvinglenn · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's fine and dandy if you're specifically targeting a particular Linux user, but it doesn't scale well to the type of infections discussed in TFA. A reason that the infections work so well in the Windows world is because there are so few variations in the systems people are running.

      I'm not saying that you couldn't infect a Linux user with an exploit of code in a video file, I'm just saying that because of the wide variety of different (video player) software options and system configurations across the Gnu/Linux/OSS userbase, such a 'viral' approach to installing malware would be MUCH LESS effective.

      --
      The whores get mad when the sluts give it away for free.
    3. Re:your overconfidence is your weakness by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      With that attitude, Linux is no more secure than windows. Look at NIMDA - "Oh - so a web/security expert could custom-make a URL that takes over my computer? You're paranoid!".

      If your model of security is "I'll use what no one else is using, regardless of any actual security holes" - then you're not secure at all.

    4. Re:your overconfidence is your weakness by j79zlr · · Score: 1

      I'm a linux user, but that point is not really valid. I would be safe to guess that 80-90% of Linux users, who have streaming video support, are using mplayerplug-in. I would guess the other 10-19% are using totem's plugin, and the other 1% are using gxine[really blows]. So if you were going after the linux user base via streaming media, an exploit in mplayerplug-in should suffice. Good luck.

      --
      I'm not not licking toads.
    5. Re:your overconfidence is your weakness by Changa_MC · · Score: 1

      If your model of security is "I'll use what no one else is using, regardless of any actual security holes" - then you're not secure at all.Using your "not secure at all," method, I'd still be more secure than 90% of the people on the internet, which is certainly good enough for my web-surfing box. It may someday get a virus, but I don't particularly care if it does, and since it never has, I'm not going to worry about it.

      --
      Changa hates change.
    6. Re:your overconfidence is your weakness by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      That's a reasonable attitude if you've got nothing you particularly care about on your system. But I wouldn't ridicule people who have a higher standard of security.

  42. fucking moderators by John+Nowak · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Mod parent up ... This is a critical message and I have no idea why it is being modded down. It is not off-topic, as it was in direct response to bogus moderator of a very serious issue.

  43. Apathy 2.0 by humankind · · Score: 1

    Just wait... Apathy 2.0 is coming out real soon.

  44. WMP's DRM is FUBAR by thebigo195 · · Score: 1

    I _never_ press "Accept" when prompted for DRM acquisition by WMP. With cases such as this one, it wont be long before Microsoft will have to come up with a better solution. Perhaps some sort of certificate or other registry is sufficient.

  45. Zango at TechCrunch by otisg · · Score: 1
    --
    Simpy
  46. MySpace are no strangers to the Spyware business by TehBeer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Info is below, and besides, doesn't this recent US patent, kind of fit MySpace?
    http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PT O2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-b ool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,069,308. PN.&OS=PN/7,069,308&RS=PN/7,069,308

    It sure sounds alot like it's describing much of what myspace is, and myspace is a "deleware company" in the US and subject to US laws.

    As for their kind fondness of spyware, see the citations below for more info.
    Birds of a feather they say.

    http://www.intermixedup.com/

    "Intermix Management and other Insiders sold approximately $25 million of Intermix stock in full knowledge that the New York State Attorney General (NY-AG), Eliot Spitzer, would soon file a lawsuit against the company for
    certain adware promotion activity. Management and Insiders sold vast quantities of stock before disclosing this critical information appropriately to the rest of the marketplace. "

    http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Bloggers_investigate_s ocial_networking_websites

    "Actually, MySpace had simply shut down and become ResponseBase-- as evidenced by the "Freebies" newsletter above. ResponseBase also used a list of 8 million e-mail addresses purchased from Xdrive for their newsletters. In 2002, ResponseBase was booted from their ISP as an illicit spam organization-- with Tom Anderson himself listed as their billing contact. And later still, ResponseBase would be renamed to MySpace."

    "Intermix Media itself has a tangled history. In 2004, Intermix (then operating as eUniverse) was named as a spammer organization on USENET. It purchased ResponseBase, shut down its operations, and reformed it as MySpace. On April 28, 2005, Intermix was sued by the State of New York for installing malicious spyware over the Internet. According to their press release:"

  47. Re:Huh? MySpace IS AdWare! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Darn you for stealing my post! If I had mod points, You'd be rated obvious.

  48. My friends... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is just Darwin at work.

  49. What bozo at Microsoft put this into their player? by Animats · · Score: 1

    It's not Myspace. It's Microsoft. Why, for whatever reason, should Windows Media Player download and start an executable file from an unknown party?

    Here's what Microsoft put in Media Player 10. See Windows Media Digital Rights Management (security). (Not your security; the content owner's security.) To play a packaged digital media file, the consumer must first acquire a license key to unlock the file. The process of acquiring a license begins automatically when the consumer attempts to acquire the packaged digital media file, acquires a pre-delivered license, or plays the file for the first time. Windows Media Rights Manager either sends the consumer to a registration page where information is requested or payment is required, or "silently" retrieves a license from a clearing house.

    That mechanism requires a Microsoft-approved license server, and apparently these attackers don't have one. So they use a related feature, which allows content to run a client-side script. This does show the user a popup; its not totally silent. But if the popup is answered, the script can download and install anything.

    As soon as some attacker gets their hands on a Microsoft-approved license server, they can craft much better attacks. You don't even have to break into anything; there's a published SDK. Yes, there's code-signing and you have to sign an agreement. But if you can get past that, you 0wn anything that downloads your content. Even mobile devices.

  50. Can you lock down a windows XP box? by dfenstrate · · Score: 1

    Nowadays I only take care of my and my fiancee's computer, and we're both smart enough to avoid these kinds of internet social diseases.

    That being said, are there ways without special software to lock down a windows xp machine so your kid or niece or whoever couldn't inflict this kind of damage on it?

    I'm really just curious, this isn't a pressing issue for me.

    --
    Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms should be the name of a store, not a government agency.
    1. Re:Can you lock down a windows XP box? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you could try a hosts file, kept my family safe for a long time, you can also check out what you can do in the group policy (if its WinXP Pro)

    2. Re:Can you lock down a windows XP box? by kcbnac · · Score: 1

      Yup. Limited User/Guest + Firefox

  51. Natural Selection by lord_sarpedon · · Score: 1

    Darwin would be proud. As such, I propose a new tag, with the famous naturalist as its namesake.

    --
    "Strangers have the best candy" -Me
    1. Re:Natural Selection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoops, third Darwin reference in a night when referring to this service. Coincidence?

  52. Zango themselves uploaded the movies! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.itnews.com.au/newsstory.aspx?CIaNID=346 64&src=site-marq

    "Those two test accounts were actually created by one of our developers who was exploring possible opportunities, but he didn't realise it was Zango business practice not to target MySpace," said Stratz. "He should not have been doing this, and we want to tell MySpace that we didn't mean to target them." The developer, said Stratz, would soon be deleting the profiles.

  53. Don't you mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many younger internet users: it's become an important part of their social life.

    All you danged whipper snappers! Back in my day we we actually had to talk to people! That's right, both ways in order to just communicate! Yesiree! And to to get pr0n we had to ride our bikes all the way to 7-11, with a headwind both ways, and we called it "porn." Why you kids and yer Internet, lemme tell you about...

  54. Founding Fathers by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 1

    > the founding fathers didn't say that most people are unfit to vote

    They didn't all think alike. A sizable camp, notably Hamilton, believed that universal suffrage would lead to mob rule because the common people would just get carried away with fads and hysteria. Jefferson championed the other view.

    An example of the compromises they came up with: state legislatures used to be the ones who elected Senators, in the hopes of providing a layer of review and deliberation between the partially untrusted people and the body that could aprove treaties and remove the President from office.

  55. Welcome to corporate America by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    Clueless people are easy to rule. Pol Pot knew it. He took it to the extreme, so today the creed is: Gullible people are just as easy to rule, but they can still be productive.

    And that's where we are today. Education today is not geared towards "preparing you for life". It is geared towards making you a good citizen. You're supposed to do your job, but be unfit to do anything else. You're not supposed to make a "qualified" decision, actually it is discouraged in every way. It helps two parties: First, your politicians, who do not want you to understand the decisions and laws they make, since you would realize that they are not necessarily in your favor. And of course companies who want to sell you goods you don't need, goods you could make yourself or you could substitute for "homespun remedies" easily, if you knew you could.

    The general sentiment about everything is usually "let someone else (a "professional") do it". While this is a good idea when it comes to, say, fixing the breaks on your car, it is definitly a bad idea when it comes to raising your kids!

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  56. thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the whole myspace thing had gone wrong.. ?

    -m10

  57. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    common? Come on...

  58. Let me clear up this misconception by Legion303 · · Score: 1

    "a strange example of viral marketing gone wrong"

    Viral marketing will never "go right" for anyone except the ass-sucking, bottom-feeding marketers who come up with it. Happy to help.

    1. Re:Let me clear up this misconception by pcardno · · Score: 1

      You mean like the fact that Lilly Allen is at number 1 in the UK charts, purely through viral marketing and word of mouth?

      --
      --- Band: Joey Ultra
    2. Re:Let me clear up this misconception by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      You're right. I should have appended "and occasionally the product being marketed when gullible morons don't realize they're being advertised at." Thanks for the heads-up.

  59. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed. A country where pissing in the woods can make you a publicly registered sex offender (yes, this does happen; yay for vigilante justice!) and where people can make (apparently socially acceptable) jokes about prison rape and AIDS. Incredible.

  60. MySpace should kill video embedding anyway by Slugster · · Score: 1

    There's a practical problem with the way that MySpace allows people to embed videos, see if you can guess what it is:
    You visit someone's page that has 4-6+ videos on it set to autorun, plus several people in their friends lists use videos as sigs, for another 8-10+ more videos.
    The browser pretty much locks up (unless you're on a T1 line), and you exit the page without having seen much of the page at all, or (very likely) any of the videos.


    -----------------
    Of course, there is that little problem with crappy page design, but as it is, many of the pages you can't even see. First things first.
    ~

    1. Re:MySpace should kill video embedding anyway by Wormbrain · · Score: 1

      Kill the autorun! Don't kill embedded videos! A good Myspace profile habit is to reject any poster who tries to put up a autorun video.

      --
      http://wormbrain.com/
  61. The Slashdot Parenting Manual by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    >It's pretty clear that parents today aren't doing their
    >jobs and policing their kids' MySpace accounts in many
    >ways.

    But the previous chapter of the Slashdot Parenting Manual says that if I don't give my kids private unfettered broadband access and let them play racy games, then I'm a Nazi.

    So which is it? I'm supposed to monitor them every second*, or give them complete freedom? ;)

    * and if I don't monitor them every second, then everything's my own fault - no complaining to Nick Jr. if Dora suddenly goes wild on spring break or something. It's my own fault as the darn parent not doing my job ...

  62. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by scovetta · · Score: 1

    Nothing, and I repeat, nothing about /. has been or ever will be socially acceptable.

    Reminds me that great joke about the prison inmates, the bar of soap, and the fire extinguisher... oh the laughs!

    --
    Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  63. Myspace Sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very happy to see dumb Myspace users being taking advantage of, this is excellent and supports the strongest survive position. If you cannot read the pop up and distribute everything someone gives you, then many of these people would be crack dealers in real life. Why is a computer supposed to make everything magically different, and why should someone have to filter their content because someone underage might do something stupid. Who cares, let them, then they will learn next time.

  64. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Sax+Maniac · · Score: 1

    That's just word of mouth, not marketing. Viral marketing is when some MBA suit tries to invent word of mouth by lying: placing stickers on signs, graffiti, hiring hot chicks to drink your client's vodka in bars. It's still marketing, and it's extra evil because it's hiding lies inside of another lie.

    --
    I can explanate how to administrate your network. You must configurate and segmentate it, so it can computate.
  65. Cross Posting on Myspace.. by acomj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have a photo site. I notice a lot of hits from xanga and myspace for some of my photos. Kids are using them as backgrounds.. I don't really care and have the bandwidth. Someone at work noted that if I was really annoyed I could change those users background to "another" picture.....

    Anytime you cross post to content on another server you run the risk of a "switch" at anytime.

    1. Re:Cross Posting on Myspace.. by Krezik · · Score: 1

      I know some people who've done this. What was once a cartoony surfer riding a tsunami became... well, a combination of a popular wintertime candy and a unique part of the male anatomy. It stayed up on one xanga for at least a week.

  66. Change the script by kernel_pat · · Score: 1

    Simply change the script and don't we have another myspace "worm".

  67. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by caseydk · · Score: 1


    Corrected headline:

    "Viral marketing infects users, film at 11"

  68. Obligatory by Lord+of+Hyphens · · Score: 1

    I. for one, do not welcome our new News Corp. overlords.

    --
    "I've spent my whole life figuring out crazy ways to do things. It'll work." -- Montgomery Scott, "Relics"
  69. You sit in a cesspool, you get sick. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every one of those idiots deserves what they get. Unfortuanately it didn't erase their hard drives and that horrid website too.

  70. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sorry, it's not about /. I wish that was the case.

    There are a couple of very barbaric things that are acceptable to be at least indifferent to in your country's mainstream media. These definitely include prison rape, locking people up in metal cages without trial (remember the "I couldn't care less about them getting wet, they have it too good" comments a couple of years ago?) and the death penalty (this one is something that's just incrompehensible to most non-Americans).

    Oh, and publishing "sex offenders'" personal details, as I mentioned. That's so far off the map it's not funny anymore.

  71. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by hobo+sapiens · · Score: 1

    People, I suspect the OP meant to be funny. Yet here it is with an insighful mod and scads of replies trying earnestly to refute OP's statements about viral marketing. That is funny in itself!

    --
    blah blah blah
  72. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 1

    Do you approve of putting down a rabid dog so it doesn't hurt people?

    If so, why do you not approve of putting down murderers and other torturers that purposely and knowingly harm others? It's not a penalty or punishment, it's god-damned common sense.

    Only stupid people are against the death penalty.

  73. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In civilized countries there's something called "life in prison". And don't say that costs too much. Stop locking up all those evil pot smokers and you'll save some real money. And your country won't be world champion of the Western world in locking up people anymore. And don't say the death penalty works. It just doesn't work as a deterrent. Not in your country, look up the stats.

    Sorry, there's just nothing that can rationalize institutionalized murder. That's right, that's what it is. And the rest of the Western world has come to realize this. We're waiting.

  74. I am entitiled to tell you by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    where you can live, what jobs you can hold, and whether you can reproduce. You don't get to live in patently dangerous places, because then we have to go save you when the flood/fire/tornado we know is comming and we know we can protect against comes. I get to tell you what job you can hold, because self taught enginneers like William Mulholland don't get to build dams. And after your 5th or 6th welfare kid, if you want to stay on the gov't teet it's time to stop having kids (heck, I'd argue you shouldn't have been having kids in the first place).

    Your actions don't happen in a vacume. Your freedoms are weighted against the benefits and risks to society. The classic example: shouting fire in a theatre. That's the whole point of society, a bunch of people getting together for the sake of stability and order.

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  75. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Gothic_Walrus · · Score: 1

    When has viral marketing ever gone right?

    Ever heard of the Blair Witch Project?

    --
    Goo goo g'joob.
  76. Idiots are citizens too by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Although the "only smart people should be allowed to vote" idea sounds appealing on the surface, it actually ignores the real purpose of a democracy. The point of democracy is not to come up with the most intelligent decisions. If it were, why not just make Albert Einstein king and forget about the whole voting thing? (Apart from the fact that he's dead.)

    No, the point is that democracy answers the question, "What right does the government have to tell me what to do?" A democratic government gets its moral authority from the consent of the governed. This can only happen if the government responds to the wishes of as many of the governed as possible, even if those wishes are stupid!

    As a silly example, if 10 people are trying to pick a movie from the video store, and 9 people really really want to watch a movie that 1 person knows is terrible, what right does he have to stop the rest? They're the ones who are going to be watching it, after all. He can try to persuade them otherwise, there could be checks and balances to stop the 9 making a hasty decision, and the individual rights of the 1 also need to be protected, but fundamentally the wishes of the majority should govern.

    Remember "no taxation without representation"? If you want to stop the idiots from voting, then you should also stop taking their taxes and sending their children to war. Idiots are citizens too.

  77. what domains are spreading it? by ahoier · · Score: 1
    Does anyone know which domains are spreading this DRM/spyware videos? I mean....most operating systems do have a HOSTS file, which can be used to block the host names.
    127.0.0.1 prompt.zangocash.com
    127.0.0.1 zangocash.com
    127.0.0.1 www.zangocash.com
    127.0.0.1 public.zangocash.com
    127.0.0.1 static.zangocash.com
    127.0.0.1 www.zango.com
    127.0.0.1 zango.com
    127.0.0.1 downloads.zango.com
    127.0.0.1 games.zango.com
    127.0.0.1 infinity.zango.com
    127.0.0.1 messenger.zango.com
    127.0.0.1 showtimes.zango.com
    127.0.0.1 www.zangomessenger.com
    127.0.0.1 www.zangoshowtimes.com
    127.0.0.1 www.180searchassistant.com
    127.0.0.1 www.180solutions.com
    But, surely they are not distributing the DRM from one of the prime 180Solutions/Zango hostnames...?
    --
    http://last.fm/user/ahoier
  78. [OT] Please block spam ip 202.138.168.92 thx :) by iamcf13 · · Score: 1
    Ok, Phroggy, 202.138.168.92 is not on any of the blocklists I am now using to filter my email, so I added it to my offline blacklist and post the ip here for all to benefit. :)

    Spam IP: 202.138.168.92

    Netmask: 202.138.160.0/20

    Owner: digitelone.com (APNIC/Phillipines) - On file with rfc-ignorant.org so it is useless to contact them.

    Proof below: (angle brackets deleted, victim email addresses sanitized except mine)
    +OK 891 octets
    Return-Path: spamvic@0451.com
    Received: from admin-fd611d5fa (unknown [202.138.168.92])
        by mx2.hotpop.com (Postfix) with ESMTP
        id 16BCB39234E0; Wed, 12 Jul 2006 13:30:11 +0000 (UTC)
    Date: Thu, 13 Jul 2006 05:25:31 +0480
    From: "Russell Ayers" spamvic2@0451.com
    X-Mailer: The Bat! (v3.0.0.15) Educational
    Reply-To: "Russell Ayers" spamvic2@0451.com
    X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
    Message-ID: 589298365.20060713052531@0451.com
    To: spamvic@hotpop.com
    Subject: (CF13-SMTP [SpamByte=000:]) 1YR
    MIME-Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-HotPOP-Delivered-To: iamcf13@hotpop.com
    X-MTA: CF13-SMTP(TM) / CF13-POP3(TM) http://www.cf13.com/
    X-CF13-SMTP-ID-Message: 20060712121326.CF13-POP3@254.168.168.192.in-addr.a rpa
     
        He didn't answer. The water was making a lot of noise.
    demonstrating love was to give something of the truth that he had seen to
    returned my pass, and said without any of the niceties:
    pure Outlaw, if that's the way they want it. And I'll make them so
    .
    Incoherent email 'ping' from a clueless spammer. If this message had meaningful content in it, it would have been cause to celebrate -- my first real email at iamcf13@hotpop.com since I started using my homebrew email client. Oh well, still waiting....

    Is there a 'global' online clearinghouse where I can email/webpost information such as this so it can 'trickle down' to all the online blacklists?
    If you know of one or more, please reply to this post, thanks.

    P.S. Slashdot CAPTCHA: killings
    Isn't that what we all try to do to unwanted email anyway? :)
  79. Re:Is that a rhetorical question? by Dasaru · · Score: 1

    The police throw drug abusers into prison because they break the law. Simple as that. If someone continues to break a law multiple times, I wouldn't want them on the street (whether they take drugs or they murder people.) There are things as mistimeners, and unless they repeatedly break the law, they will not be put in prison. Although, the drug rehab centers that we have to keep people off the street needs some improvements. But these posts are a little off topic. The main problem is the advertising that they have been sending through myspace. Now even though I support advertising (even though they are annoying), something like this is a little overboard. I personally think that the User Agreements that companies send out should be a little more clear. I've never fully understood them, but all I really need to know is the general idea of what companies are doing. And I think that is the most important thing of all. User Agreements have gotten so bad, that I rarely read them anymore. (I only read them if I think spyware or information exchanges with third parties are involved or something seems suspicious.)